Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

FW: Proposal for accomodating 10.0000 and 9.58464 line rates

I'm not sure this is the same argument at all, since there is quite a
difference between the local flow control scenario and the remote one.
Doesn't using frame based flow control from the PHY locally make things more
There might be two sources for flow control signals, the local PHY and the
remote MAC, presumably these would have to be distinguished, otherwise a
'resume' message (whatever this is called) from one might countermand
'pause' message from the other.
Alternately is the PHY both a source and a sink for flow control frames from
both sides of it (local and remote), like a low function bridge?
My apologies if this is all clear from a presentation given at the last HSSG


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Howard
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 5:28 PM
To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Proposal for accomodating 10.0000 and 9.58464 line rates

Not only did Shimon and I present the CRS deferral flow control
mechanism to the 802.3x Task Force 4 years ago, we were granted a patent
on it.  US Pat No 5,784,559 Full Duplex Flow Control was assigned to
Sun Microsystems, Inc, and issued on July 21, 1998.

After much careful consideration, 802.3x rejected CRS deferral flow
control in favor of the frame based flow control which was eventually
incorporated into the standard.  One of the points of general agreement
was that CRS based flow control offered no performance advantage over
frame based flow control, while frame based flow control could be
applied over a variety of media, and at a variety of speeds.

The idea of using frame based flow control as a solution to the problem
of adapting a 10 Gbps MAC to a 9.?????? PHY has been previously
suggested in this debate.  As Rich Taborek mentioned earlier today,
there have been no counter arguments to this proposal offered.

I contend that, rather than creating a new flow control mechanism for
10 Gigabit Ethernet, it would be preferable to make use of the flow
control mechanism that we have already defined. We don't need another
flow control mechanism in Ethernet, and we certainly don't need to
rehash old debates.

Howard Frazier