| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Gary,
It's a different path this time. A Packet Over SONET port by definition
interfaces with another SONET port, and thus must be fully SONET compliant.
A 10GE port by definition will interface with a matching 10GE port.
Other equipment within that second network element tweaks
the 10GE signal to make it fully SONET compliant.
Please refer to the following presentation for more background:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/bottorff_2_0300.pdf
I'm open to any proposal for an alternative naming convention that helps
clarify the work, and makes Jonathan's life easier.
...Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Nicholl [SMTP:gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 6:00 PM
To: Martin, David [SKY:1I63-M:EXCH]; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Renaming the WAN PHY
Dave,
Having been down a similar path with POS (Packet-over-SONET) I don't see how
you can have a SONET compatible phy that isn't SONET compliant. As I
understood it the reason for having a SONET framed interface in the first place
was to be compatible with the installed SONET based transport and DWDM
networks. To meet this requirement I think the interface has to be SONET
compliant, in the same way that POS interfaces have to be compliant with all
the appropriate Bellcore and ITU SONET/SDH standards.
I think it would be very confusing to to have an interface that 'looks and
feels' like SONET but in fact isn't. If that is really the intent then I think
it needs to be clearly distinguished from a 'real' SONET interface.
Gary Nicholl .............
At 04:56 PM 3/24/00 , David Martin wrote:
>
> How about "SONET-compatible PHY". While I could agree to drop the "WAN"
> portion of the name, we still need to be clear that our proposal is not a
> SONET-compliant PHY. There is a significant cost/feature difference. To
> reiterate,
> the "SONET-compatible PHY" has the following key differences:
> * minimal OH processing (i.e. only 4 OAM bytes, not SONET's
> 36-A1/2-H1/4=30)
> * wider clock tolerance (i.e. the usual +/-100ppm, not SONET's +/-4.6ppm)
> * higher jitter tolerance (i.e. >0.15UIpp of SONET, exact value still TBD)
> * low cost optics (i.e. for <40km, not the 80/120km of SONET OC-192)
> All of which will "bring the cost down out of the stratosphere" to paraphrase
> a
> committee member and in line with the 3x1GE target.
>
> ...Dave
>
> David W. Martin
> Nortel Networks
> +1 613 765-2901
> +1 613 763-2388 (fax)
> <mailto:dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ========================
> -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tolley [SMTP:btolley@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:50 PM To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Renaming the WAN PHY
>
> Colleagues:
>
> To follow up on the suggestion made by Jonathan during the New Mexico
> plenary, may I be so bold as to suggest that we change the name of the "WAN
> PHY" to something very simple like PHY with SONET framer.
>
> We need to get the word WAN out of the name of the PHY
>
> o Most common folk outside the esteemed IEEE process think long distance when
> they think WAN and on the basis of Paul Bottorf of Nortel,'s presentations
> the initial application of the WAN PHY would be for short links between
> collocated equipment often in the same room.
>
> 2) There are ways to build MANs/WANs that do not require SONET. For 10GbE
> some of these MANs/WANs will use the LAN PHY and a 1550 PMD over dark fiber
> or dark wavelengths. The proof point for this is the 1000s of long distance
> 1310 nm 1550 nm 1000BASE-X GBICs that are being deployed today over dark
> fiber. The WAN PHY as stated in the goal does not address the total possible
> 10GBE WAN market and confuses people.. This makes it a bad name in my opinion
>
>
> I do not think we necessarily need a motion to change the objective, but I
> think we need to choose our words carefully when we name the PHY that the
> objective signifies.
>
> Bruce Cisco Systems