10 G.Eth over Sonet DATS
- To: "bill.st.arnaud" <bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roy Bynum <RBYNUM/0004245935@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: 10 G.Eth over Sonet DATS
- From: bgregory@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:35:37 -0500
- Cc: IEEE HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quick question... Does a G.Eth signal at 1.25 Gb/s efficiently fit
inside of a Sonet DATS frame? I'd guess that only one G.Eth signal
could be embedded in a single OC-48 signal (is this correct?). This
would seem to leave a large percentage of the frame unused.
QUESTION: What 10 G.Eth data rate (data plus overhead) would you
recommend for efficient loading into a Sonet OC-48 or OC-192 DATS
frame? Is it important to be able to load both OC-192 and OC-48, or
should we focus on just OC-192?
Internet IP will continue to be what the market requirements reflect.
Slow restoration times are acceptable in that environment. The UUNet
Long Haul GbE is part of what I am doing. I am the one that put the
Long Haul Optical switching/Metro DWDM/SONET DATS evaluation of GbE
As a bit irony, dependable GbE is turning out to be less expensive
than undependable IP over TDM, ATM, or POS. Unless MPLS comes in a
respectable price break, GbE over Native Data SONET DATS will still be
In addition to being less expensive, GbE over Native Data SONET DATS
will provide "subscription control" though "flow control" That
"subscription control" will prevent over-subscribing the WAN links,
which is a big problem for enterprise data network designers and
architects. Combine that with "priority queueing" and most of what
MPLS was supposed to do has already been accomplished by GbE. You
guys as IEEE have done a greater job than you knew.
Dependable, high quality transport of Native data traffic such as GbE
and 10GbE is probably going to be a different market, one that "best
effort" is unacceptable to. If there is a market that provides the
profit margin that will sustain 10GbE, it will not be the Internet as
it is today.
I do know that I have been given the requiement that carriers can not
support a data service over long haul systems that does not provide
"SONET like" functionality. The reason that I joined this study group
is to provide that insight to the standards developers. If that is GbE
or 10GbE over SONET then the issue is already resolved. All that
remains is to determine what the LAN application requirements are,
then the standard can be defined.
Date: Mon May 17, 1999 3:23 pm CST
Source-Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:17:51 -0400
EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
TO: * ROY BYNUM / MCI ID: 424-5935
Subject: RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
U-X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0)
U-X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
U-X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Again no disagreement. I don't think traditional SONET or ATM
disappear. The model we advocate is the same that Frontier is now
IP/DWDM for best efforts, slow restoral traffic on one set of
IP over SONET on another set of wavelengths for those services that
fast restoral and security of SONET, and IP over ATM over SONET on
set of wavelengths for fine grained QoS services.
I agree with you that the driving force for GbE is cost. It makes a
dramatic difference to the overall cost of the network.
But I believe GbE can also make an equal dramatic difference on the
transport side on medium, long haul links up to 1000 km. Your sister
company UUNet has already demonstrated that on some long haul GbE
But I agree with you this type of link is probably only good for best
efforts IP traffic.
Bill St Arnaud
Director Network Projects