Re: Give me serial 10GbE or.......
Ed,
I'll provide my best answers to your questions below.
Edward Chang wrote:
> Joe, Pat, Richard and All:
>
> Usually the implementation issues are left for each company to optimize its
> design to achieve the most cost-effective goal, which is part of the
> incentive for competing in the marketplace to "make it even better, and
> cost-effective than others". The market will determine the most
> cost-effective approach and products. Our job is to provide market the
> opportunities to prosper, while we are setting standard for
> "interoperability", but not to interfere the market dynamics. I believe
> this is always the goals for all standards, and HSSG is no exception.
>
> Therefore, we should ask ourselves, what is HARI's role in this hot debate?
>
> 1. Should we introduce HARI to everyone as a tool for those need help,
> without any binding?
I don't know if I understand the meaning of your usage of the word "binding".
Interpreting "without any binding" as "without prejudice", I believe that this
is how Hari has been introduced to the HSSG. Fully thought out system solutions
including consideration of cost savings due to technology integration have been
considered and shown for everyone's PMD.
> 2. Should we introduce HARI to market as an industry supported approach, but
> not a standard, as GBIC, 10-bit Interfaces in early days?
Hari, being a quad-SerDes already enjoys wide industry support. Just take a look
at InfiniBand (a.k.a. NGIO, System I/O, FIO, etc.) presentations from their
kick-off event http://www.sysio.org/events/index.html. This is not technology
that a few of us have "cooked up in the kitchen" last month. As far as the
P802.3ae is concerned, Hari is very similar in nature to the GbE optional TBI
(Ten-Bit Interface) described in 802.3 Clause 36 and is also proposed as an
optional interface.
> 3. Should we introduce HARI as a part of the IEEE 802.3ae standard, because
> it is crystal clear that standard can not be completed without it?
Yes. Many Ethernet equipment developers see the benefits Hari provides. This is
similar to the benefits of the TBI to GbE. I'll note that the TBI description in
802.3 Clause 36.3.3 starts out with: "The ten-bit interface (TBI) is defined to
provide compatibility among devices designed by different manufacturers. There
is no requirement for a compliant device to implement or expose the TBI." Hari
is proposed in essentially the same manner for P802.3ae. I believe that the
802.3 is the "best" place to standardize Hari primarily because of the clear and
concise manner in which 802.3 standards are written, and specifically the
required Protocol Implementation Conformance Statements.
> As a component user, I need the interoperability to have multiple vendors
> with competitive prices and services, but I also need the freedom to
> innovate the products.
I believe that Hari meets your needs. It is a cost effective optional interface
intended to provide interoperability between multiple vendors.
> I believe we all have the obligation to the committee to carefully evaluate
> and understand the issues, then vote correctly for the objective of our
> committee.
>
> For the time being, I like to be well informed through discussions and
> laboratory data to prepare for my vote.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Chang
> NetWorth Technologies, Inc.
> EChang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Best regards,
Rich
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taborek Sr. 1441 Walnut Dr. Campbell, CA 95008 USA
Tel: 408-330-0488 or 408-370-9233 Cell: 408-832-3957
Email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxx or rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx