RE: Open Request to Del Hanson and David Cunningham: Link Model for 1 0 Gig Ethernet
Roy, this is an optical link model (think photons, not protocols). jt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 10:36 PM
> To: Jonathan Thatcher
> Cc: 'HSSG_reflector (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: Open Request to Del Hanson and David Cunningham:
> Link Model
> for 1 0 Gig Ethernet
> I am not sure what will be in this presentation. What are
> you referring to when
> you write "link models"? I will have a presentation that
> will deal with 10GbE
> implementation architectures and support requirements. Is
> this the same, or
> similar, or something different?
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> MCI WorldCom
> "HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)" wrote:
> > Jonathan,
> > We would be happy to submit a relatively short presentation
> > GbE link model refinements needed to deal with likely 10GbE
> link issues.
> > This will be a joint paper which I will present at the York Interim.
> > This could be extended further for the November Plenary.
> > Title: "Gigabit Ethernet Fiber Optic Link Model Refinements Needed
> > For Projected 10 Gigabit Ethernet Link Cases", By David Cunningham
> > and Del Hanson, Hewlett-Packard Company
> > Regards,
> > Del
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Thatcher [mailto:jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 8:40 AM
> > To: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
> > Subject: Open Request to Del Hanson and David Cunningham:
> Link Model for
> > 1 0 Gig Ethernet
> > Del and David,
> > I would like to request, in behalf of the HSSG, a
> presentation at the York
> > meeting regarding the applicability of the "Gigabit
> Ethernet Model (i.e.,
> > Hanson; Cunningham spreadsheet)" for use in our work on "ten Gig."
> > This model was extremely helpful to us in 1000BASE-X in discussing
> > variations to the specifications and resolving issues. I
> expect, as with any
> > model, that there are certain underlying assumptions which
> might have to be
> > corrected (or at least tuned) for application in 10 Gig. At
> very least,
> > there will be new techniques needed to use it for
> multilevel encoding, as an
> > example.
> > Some things to consider:
> > 1. Use of truely single mode LW lasers (vs multiple
> longitudinal; single
> > transverse mode)
> > 1.1 Compensated by adjusting K only?
> > 1.2 Chirp?
> > 1.2 Measurement of spectral width (rate of drift of "single mode" vs
> > characterization of spectra)
> > 2. The inherent difference between rise and fall times
> > 3. Assumptions about ISI penalty maximums for a link
> > 4. Simultaneous support for:
> > 4.1 Serial up to 12.5 Gig
> > 4.2 Parallel / WDM down to ?
> > 4.3 Support of various multi-level schemes
> > 4.4 Channel to channel crosstalk issues
> > 4.6 Assumptions for SMF and high performance BW MMF
> > 5. Replacement of the E/R (per FC proposals)
> > 6. The various recommendations made by Petar Pepeligoski (IBM)
> > Please let me know if this is reasonable or not in the
> limited timeframe.
> > Thanks,
> > jonathan
> > p.s. As background, I would suggest possible reference to
> the analysis done
> > on this model in the book "Gigabit Ethernet Networking"
> Macmillan Technical
> > Publishing; ISBN: 1-57870-062-0; chapter 9: "The Gigabit
> Ethernet Optical
> > Link Model." :-)
> > jt
> > Jonathan Thatcher "jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> > Chair IEEE 802.3 High Speed Study Group
> > Vice President Product Marketing, Picolight Incorporated
> > 4665 Nautilus Court South, Suite 3, Boulder CO 80301
> > Phone: 303-530-3189 X238; Fax: 303-530-4897