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

Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY

Hi Tom,

I used "UniPHY" in the context of the survey. My interpretation of UniPHY in the
survey is that it is a superset of any and all proposals, including Mr.
Frazier's, which provide a hybrid means of addressing 10 GbE LAN and WAN

With respect to your comments specifically on Mr. Frazier's proposal, like many
other proposals at this stage including XAUI/XGXS: These proposals are merely a
blueprint for a complete solution. Like all blueprints, the finished product,
whether it be a house, document, or 10 GbE LAN/WAN router, will take a lot of
additional effort. However, I believe that Mr. Frazier's proposal is an adequate
blueprint and buildable. That's why I affixed my and my company's name to it.

Best Regards,

Tom Truman wrote:
> Rich,
> By UniPHY, are you referring to Frazier's specific proposal, or a more general
> unified phy?
> The proposal presented by H. Frazier glossed over many details of the
> interworking --
> and we all know that without the details, almost anything that has Unification
> as a keyword sounds good. And of course, given *no* additional constraints about
> cost,
> compatibility with existing infrastructure, and bandwidth efficiency, a "uniphy"
> sounds great. But it is only with these additional constraints that the question
> makes sense.
> Regards,
> Tom Truman
> Rich Taborek wrote:
> >
> > Bruce,
> >
> > Well said! This was also my interpretation of the survey results. If there were
> > only one question on the survey, UniPHY vs. separate LAN and WAN PHY, I believe
> > that the survey results would be the same (i.e. strongly in favor of a UniPHY).
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > Bruce Tolley wrote:
> > >
> > > At 08:33 AM 3/14/00 -0600, Roy Bynum wrote:
> > > >  I think that the original compromise and
> > > >the objectives as stated are correct, there needs to be seperate LAN and WAN
> > > >PHYs.
> > >
> > > Roy:
> > >
> > > I think in the first part of your statement you hit the nail on the head.  Goal #9 (Define two families of PHYs) was a compromise that came out of several meetings that was aided by the bridge diagram originally proposed by Howard Frazier.
> > >
> > > Many folks have since expressed displeasure with the idea of a bridge but the picture gave the members of the study group a way to understand and bound the problem.
> > >
> > > The goal of two PHYs agreed upon in York was as much political statement as it was a technical statement. There was a strong feeling up to the meeting in York of the need to limit the problem, define the goals, and get on with the work.
> > >
> > > It was always clearly stated that the goals were not written in stone and we might come back to revise them.
> > >
> > > Given the basis of the findings from survey conducted by Jonathan, I conclude that there is strong support among the members of the task force to seriously investigate the concept of the UniPHY.
> > >
> > > Bruce
Richard Taborek Sr.                 Phone: 408-845-6102       
Chief Technology Officer             Cell: 408-832-3957
nSerial Corporation                   Fax: 408-845-6114
2500-5 Augustine Dr.        mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
Santa Clara, CA 95054