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

Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY


Apology accepted.

Please feel free to propose and promote any technology, protocol, etc. you feel
best meets 802.3ae PAR criteria and HSSG objectives. I have and will continue to
do the same.

The proposals that I have put forth are not only my own, but are the culmination
of efforts of a multitude of experts from the data communications and
telecommunications industry. I hope that these proposal reflect the best
technologies and methodologies available for 10 GbE products slated for LAN, MAN
and WAN applications. 

I've been listening to your ideas and am not convinced that SONET offers any
advantages over current proposals for the LAN. If I did, I would join your side.
However, I believe that the currently proposed WAN PHY is at a significant
technical disadvantage to either the LAN PHY or UniPHY. Both latter PHY's are
scrambled when the PMD is Serial. In addition, a recent proposal for 8B/10B
Idles scrambles the Idles for significant EMI reduction. 

I never said that a LAN implementation can not be done with a "SONET scramble
PHY". After all, we've all been blessed with the Pinto, Pacer, Rambler, Vega and
Edsel. I'm just saying that not as good an idea as others. Please don't let me
interrupt your agenda though.

Best Regards,

Roy Bynum wrote:
> Rich,
> I am not attempting to unjustly flame you!  I am trying to point out a miss
> advertised perception that you (and others) are presenting.  Specifically,
> that a LAN implementation can not be done with the SONET scramble PHY of
> P802.3ae.  You are making very generalized statements in an attempt to
> distance Ethernet from SONET.  I might as well say that Ethernet does not
> support Fibre Channel or any of its technologies, and I would be as correct
> as you are!  Ethernet is never converted to SONET and SONET is never
> converted to Ethernet!  Your statement:
> "Of course the LAN supports SONET. Ethernet does so today at 10 Mbps, with
> Fast
> Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet. Conversion to/from SONET is seamlessly
> performed
> and SONET is NEVER deployed in the LAN."
> (I have blocked it out below so there will no mistake of a misquote.
> Everyone can reference the previous message in this thread to verify.)
> This is a commonly presented perception that is so wrong that it is
> embarrassing.
> Again I will reference the OSI model.  SONET is layer 1, just like 8B10B.
> Ethernet is layer 2.  Ethernet, being a layer 2 protocol is on top of any
> layer 1 coding that is placed under it, 8B10B or SONET.  To be specific the
> proposed WAN compatible PHY is NOT full SONET.  To be specific, other than
> in having a more fixed transfer rate, the proposed WAN compatible PHY is
> just as compatible with LAN implementation as 8B10B is. Like 8B10B, to make
> it have a 10.000 Gb MAC transfer rate, all it would take is to clock it at a
> higher signaling rate. (Paul Bottroff, David Martin, and others can verify
> the feasibility of this.)
> As the person that is identified more than most as a proponent of, and
> defendant of 8B10B, Fibre Channel and InfiniBand, which you are always
> referencing, you become the focal point of those that would attempt to
> separate 8B10B from being the default encoding in the perception of the
> members of the P802.3ae Task Force.
> If you want, I can spend time looking through all of the e-mails and find
> the one that you refer to how long you have been working with Fibre Channel,
> including years with IBM, which also indicate a personal attachment, almost
> "fondness" for the technology.  (Personally, I also think that Fibre Channel
> is a very good technology.  I just don't want to build a large extended,
> long distance, LAN infrastructure using it.)
> Again, I am attempting to open the perception of the members of this TF to
> alternatives of thinking.  I have had the opportunity to work with a lot of
> different transport technologies, perhaps more than some of the individuals
> in the group.
> I do not have a particular "attachment" or "fondness" for any technology.  I
> am pragmatic and recognize that each has its advantages.  SONET and SDH well
> suited for the service industry transport infrastructure that is currently
> in place.  Full SONET and SDH are not as well suited for data only at the
> data switch interface; which is why I proposed a reduced function over head,
> or "SONET Lite" for the P802.3ae WAN compatible PHY.
> If I have unjustly angered you or others of this TF, I apologize.  I have a
> great respect for you personally and for your expertise in Fibre Channel and
> its related technologies.  I would like for you to reconsider the defacto
> attitude that you and others have presented relative to the relationship
> between Ethernet and 8B10B encoding.
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> --
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > Please never directly quote things that I never said.
> >
> > You'll find in my immediately prior communication on this thread that I
> > said: "The LAN does not transport SONET". This is a very accurate statement.
> > You somehow misconstrued this and attributed a direct quote to me replacing
> > my word "transport" with "support".
> >
> > Of course the LAN supports SONET. Ethernet does so today at 10 Mbps,
> > with Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet. Conversion to/from SONET is
> > seamlessly performed and SONET is NEVER deployed in the LAN.
> |
> >
> > 10 Gigabit Ethernet objectives include direct SUPPORT of Wide Area
> > Networks, these include, but are not limited to, SONET.
> >
> > At this point, please allow me to remind you of reflector usage rules that
> > I personally feel that you are in gross violation of. I will quote Mr. David
> >
> > "Communications are expected to be respectful, dignified, and germane to
> > the subject of the reflector.
> >
> > The reflector is not a 'free speech' forum. Subscriptions may be revoked
> > for inappropriate communications. These include, but are not limited to:
> > recruiting, advertising, soliciting, spamming, flaming, whining, and
> > disparaging individuals or companies."
> >
> > I strongly object to your personal attacks on me. Our chair, Mr. Jonathan
> > Thatcher, is directly copied as a warning to you.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
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