RE: Does Ten-Gigabit Ethernet need fault tolerance?
Roy, sorry but I blinked and missed a tread. What is L1 restoration link
From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 1999 6:02 PM
To: Joe Gwinn
Subject: Re: Does Ten-Gigabit Ethernet need fault tolerance?
I have a question? Your RTFC flooding algorithm sounds a lot like the
algorithms that have been proposed for DXC traffic restoration in the
industry. These have not been used because of the complexity of constraints
introduced in designing the architecture. This might work in very simple
but I have reservations about successful implementations in large, high
In doing economic modeling, it was discovered that using simple L1
restoration link services actually cost less to implement in large complex
architectures. Nodal failure is more often better handled at higher layers.
In addition, simple L1 restoration implementations are easier to maintain
not-so-technical people. Part of the reason for the success of 802.3 is the
simplicity of maintenance. The success of 10GbE will be dependent on a
of that simplicity.
Joe Gwinn wrote:
> At 2:22 PM 99/7/16, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
> >A question and a suggestion:
> >1. Are you suggesting that Fault Tolerence is a requirement for 10 Gig
> >Ethernet or for all Ethernet? Or, if FT is added to 10Gig Ethernet, is
> >any particular value if 10, 100, and 1000 BASE-* don't have it?
> I am suggesting fault tolerance as an optional enhancement for 10GbE only,
> mainly because it's early enough in 10GbE's standards development timeline
> that FT could be included without pain, if the committee so desires.
> Another reason is that I would like to be able to buy FT/DT 10GbE products
> a few years from now, for use in military systems. If you recall from the
> London GbE meeting, I intended to suggest this FT technology to GbE, but
> the technology couldn't be released in time, and so missed the GbE
> standards train.
> As for the other ethernet standards, I propose nothing, although there is
> no reason that they could not also take advantage of the offered FT
> technology, should they so desire.
> The RTFC technology allows some segments of an overall network to be FT,
> and does not require all to be FT, so there is no reason for an
> approach. In a network containing multiple FT segments, the segments
> to changes and roster independently of one another.
> >A1: If all Ethernet: you should ask for a call for interest in 802.3 and
> >bring presentations supporting the requirement (5 criteria, etc).
> >A2: If only 10 Gig Ethernet: you should bring a presentation supporting
> >requirment to the next 802.3 HSSG meeting. Expect questions about how
> >supports the 5 criteria. Expect questions about why only 10 Gig Ethernet.
> The famous 5 criteria, lifted from slide 15 of thatcher_1_0399.pdf:
> 3.4.1. Broad Market Potential -- FT is already in ATM/SONET, 802.3ad,
> Rapid Reconfiguration in 802.1, etc, so there seems to be preexisting wide
> agreement that fault tolerance is desirable and has a sufficiently broad
> market potential.
> 3.4.2. Compatibility with IEEE Standard 802.3 -- Based on my experience
> with 802.3z, I believe the offered technology is compatible, but the
> committee is the expert here.
> Some facts: The current RTFC implementations use standard TriQuint
> Fibre-Channel parts and Finisar optical transceivers for the gigabit
> plus some code in a standard-issue FPGA. Only Fibre Channel layers FC-0
> and part of FC-1 are used, just as GbE does (although the details of use
> FC-1 differs). The network segments (containing NICs, hubs, and fibers)
> are either in "data mode" (with normal lan traffic), or in "rostering
> (where the new roster of NICs, hubs, and fibers are configuring themselves
> into a working segment), and the protocols used in those two modes are
> wholly independent of one another. This is detailed in RTFC Principles of
> 3.4.3. Distinct Identity -- No problem. No other fault and damage
> tolerance algorithm works this way, and thus confers unique advantages.
> For one, the technology is noticably simpler than all other FT
> I am aware of, and is a whole lot more robust (in that it also supports
> Perhaps the key difference between this and other message-based fault
> distributed tolerance schemes is that all other schemes attempted to be
> stingy with mesages (because they are expensive in most distributed
> systems), while RTFC is a flooding protocol with just enough population
> control to prevent network saturation. The use of flooding allowed a
> radical simplification of the algorithm, and the implementation of true
> damage tolerance rather than just fault tolerance.
> 3.4.4. Technical Feasibility -- It has been implemented, and is in use in
> military application, with others under consideration.
> 3.4.5. Economic Feasibility -- It has been implemented, and the algorithm
> is quite simple, as detailed in RTFC Principles of Operation. We are
> basically talking about making a gate array slightly larger in those hubs
> supporting fault tolerance (for which one can charge extra).
> I guess the only requirement, in the sense that all of 10GbE would have to
> follow it, is for the NICs to do their part in rostering, a simple task
> easily buried in the NIC's state machines. The rest is for an optional
> variety of hub where one does the rest of the rostering algorithm.
> If by "requirment" you mean only a one-liner like "10GbE shall support
> Fault Tolerance", it wouldn't be much of a presentation. I doubt that
> anyone will argue that fault tolerance is undesirable; their question will
> be "At what price?". I claim the price is small, and the payoff large.
> the final analysis, the matter will turn on how hard it is to implement
> algorithm, a matter of details.
> I don't know that I will be able to attend many meetings, so I won't be a
> very active proponent of my own technology. As I said before, no salesman
> will call. But email is another matter.
> More to the point, a few brave souls will no doubt read the RTFC
> of Operation, and if they think that there is something there that 10GbE
> either wants or needs, and the rest of the committee comes to agree, the
> technology will find its way into GbE. Otherwise, it won't. How else
> could it be?
> Basically, this technology is a gift, yours if you wish it. I feel it is
> of great value to 10GbE, and will be very interested to know what people
> think after they have had time to absorb the core of the technology, and
> see the implications.
> PS: I'll be on travel, to an unrelated standards meeting, the week 19-23
> July 1999.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: gwinn@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gwinn@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 2:15 PM
> >> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Does Ten-Gigabit Ethernet need fault tolerance?
> >> The purpose of this note is to present a case for inclusion of fault
> >> tolerance in 10GbE, and to offer a suitable proven technology for
> >> consideration. However, no salesman will call.
> >The basic technical document, the RTFC Principles of Operation, is on the
> >GbE website as "http://grouper.ieee.org/ groups/802/3/ 10G_study/public/
> >email_attach/ gwinn_1_0699.pdf" and "http://grouper.ieee.org/
> >groups/802/3/10G_study/ public/ email_attach/ gwinn_2_0699.pdf".