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

Re: Data rate standards vs internal switching standards

Rohit, et al,

What is to prevent some unscrupulous vendor from sell a non WAN/MAN support
capable version of 10GbE to someone?  Are we to be responsible for adding to
the "caveat emptier" atmosphere of this industry?  As it is, a lot of the
sales and marketing people in this industry have the habit of advertising
and sell functionality that they do not have.  Are we to become part of
that, by creating a "cheap" version of a protocol that causes support
problems for customers?

The whole reason for the proposal of a 9.584 MAC transfer rate was to allow
the standardization of an optical 10GbE protocol that has the support
functionality that is recognized by the optical networking industry.  There
are several people on this reflector that are also participants in the
Optical Interoperability Forum (OIF) that was started by data communications
vendors, among others.

I joined this group for the specific purpose of preventing the spread of an
optical protocol that belonged on copper, not on fiber.  I have no issue
with 10.0 MAC transfer rate for copper, it can not be implemented of 100s
and 1,000s of km where the user/customer does not have viability or ability
to support he fiber that he is using.  Any protocol that can be implemented
over optical fiber can and will be used over fiber that is leased, not
owned.  That means it can not be supported without built in OAM features in
the protocol.  Those features are a REQUIREMENT as far as I am concerned.

The use of 9.584 transfer rate has been proposed as the most cost effective
and simplest way to provide a base for adding OAM features to the optical
PHYs of 10GbE.  It leverages the existing SONET/SDH technology.  It may be
that some vendors would like to be able to have their intellectual property
be part of the 10GbE standard.  As a data network architect, designer,
implementor, and customer, I would rather see a public domain standard.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum
MCI WorldCom

Rohit Sharma wrote:

> I concur entirely.
> "KISS" and make up...
> -rohit
> Rohit Sharma
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Bennett [mailto:mjbennett@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 12:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Data rate standards vs internal switching standards
> >
> >
> >
> > I think its time the WAN folks consider a call for interest
> > to do the SONET
> > compatible standard separately from the LAN/MAN efforts.
> > This would allow
> > consensus for a 10 Gbs MAC and we could move on.  Devendra
> > Tripathi alluded
> > to this yesterday, although to give it an "honorable mention"
> > rather than
> > make it standard.  I'm curious if others would support a
> > separate effort in
> > hope that both groups could move forward.  I'm not opposed to a WAN
> > standard, but it seems as though there is no end in sight for
> > a compromise,
> > that is to choose either a 10 or Gbs data rate.  Some seem to be
> > willing to sacrifice the simplicity and low cost of Ethernet
> > to get into
> > the WAN market.  In my humble opinion as an end user of
> > Ethernet equipment,
> > if we stray from that which has made Ethernet so successful to date it
> > would negatively affect the future of Ethernet.
> >
> > Mike Bennett
> >