Re: Please help to clarify some things!
There was an attempt to decoupage the signaling encoding from the MAC data rate because the
9.584 MAC rate would work for a block encoded LAN only PHY in addition to a WAN compatible
PHY. The MAC rate of 10.00 may work for the block encoded LAN only PHY, but it will not
work for a WAN compatible PHY. The only objective that was related to these issues was the
MAC rate. The issue of a standardizing on a MAC that can support a WAN compatible PHY as
well as a LAN only PHY instead of standardizing on a MAC that can not support WAN
compatibility continues to be related to cost, processing overhead, and other issues
related to the encoding.
Dae Young KIM wrote:
> 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
> - managemet
> - cost
> 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:
> > Dae,
> > 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