Re: Please help to clarify some things!
I'm sorry, but when did I assert "WAN compatible PHY should be more expensive than a
block encoded LAN only PHYZ"? When did I ever comment on the cost?
You're suddenly jumping into the cost which I did not mention.
My point is the issue of line speed and line coding should be decoupled; if not
completely, then as far as possible.
In fact, you seem to mix up three or four different issue into a bowl.
- line speed
- line code
Although for any PHY, all the four issues are involved, in pushing your WAN idea, I
think it's better tackle each issue one-by-one. One of the reason people get confused
and the discussion takes too long is that, IMHO, you jump among these rather orthogonal
issues in establishing your logic. You even seem to try to mix up the things and catch
three (or even four) birds with a single stone.
Yet, I don't think it's a good strategy. You do have a lot of appealing logics, but why
don't you try to tackle the issues one by one? By jumping among different issues and
confusing people, you might rather lose more than win something.
I do like and respect your concern and affection on WAN aspects, but let's do the job
one by one.
Roy Bynum wrote:
> Where does the idea come from that developing a new technology that operates as a
> higher signaling rate, with more active bytes per data traffic payload, will be less
> expensive than a technology that has already been developed, operates at a lower
> signaling speed, and has 4 bytes of active overhead per 15000 bytes of data traffic
> payload? I am confused, when does lower processing, and lower speed become more
> expensive? Unless the interface price is artificially inflated, a native data 10GbE
> WAN compatible PHY should not be more expensive than a block encoded LAN only PHY at
> the same laser output.
Dae Young KIM