Re: Long distance links
I only support one rate, 10,000 Gbps at MAC/Plus, and also support 9.58464
Gbps at WAN/PHY using rate conversion by HOLD, Buffer, variable IPG... etc.
This approach will enable both LAN (10, 100, 1000, 10,000 Mbps) and WAN (OC1,
3, 12, 48, 192) maintain backward computability to provide smooth migration,
and integration for both camps.
I assume many of us think HSSG definition ends at WAN/PHY input, which I have
no objection as a definition.
However, as a user, I have to keep thinking "What is the most cost-effective
way to implement it in the whole link -- end-to-end."
NetWorth Technologies, Inc.
> >I still do not see the justification of everyone has to be 9.58... ,
> >of 10,000 and 9.58... for the sake of fairness to both LAN and WAN camps.
> >are an equal opportunity committee -- I believe.
> It may be true that we are an equal opportunity committee, but the object
> agreed upon by that committee states:
> * Select only one of 10,000 Gbs or 9.58464 Gbs to standardize as the
> MAC/PLS data rate
> If you're saying you'd support a 10.000 Gbs MAC/PLS data rate with some
> kind of flow control mechanism to get 9.58464 in a WAN PHY then I agree,
> but you can't have both data rates unless we change the objective, right?