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

RE: Why not have both?

Paul Bottorff:

Would you mind answer Dae Young Kim's question?  The similar question was
asked before, and I believe, you handled that question.


Ed Chang
NetWorth Technologies, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dae Young KIM
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 5:27 AM
To: Edward Chang
Cc: rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Why not have both?

One question on the number.

According to my calculation, with OC192

    - The Gross rate is        9.95328  Gbps

    - The SPE rate is          9.621504 Gbps

    - The user data rate is    9.510912 Gbps

Where does the number 9.548 come from? We've been talking about the pure
payload, so I'd pick 9.510 Gpbs Ethernet NRZ rate.

I should be mistaken somewhere. Would you please correct me?

Edward Chang wrote:

> Roy:
> Thanks for proposing a simple WAN/PHY specification.  We can move on from
> here to generate a complete specification for HSSG.
> I like the fact that your WAN/PHY is based on OC-192C signaling standard,
> which is widely implemented in the marketplace - Light SONET.
> Your proposal, surely, is a simple, bare-bone overhead, which I think will
> do the job.
> Nevertheless, if there is any other proposal, we should also discuss it.
> Also, it is the time to start deal with those issues: 9.548...Gbps NRZ
> scramble data, data rate conversion scheme (10.000/9.548.Gbps), framing,
> recovered clock characteristics (should meet SONET jitter-transfer,
> jitter-tolerance, and jitter-generation? Probably not), clock frequency
> tolerance (100 ppm?), data jtter characteristics, BER, fault reporting,
> SERDES, target distance (40 km max?), media......etc.

Dae Young KIM