Re: Renaming the WAN PHY
Please read below:
Roy Bynum wrote:
> It is has never been stated by any of the presentors that the WAN compatible
> PHY would in work on LAN implementations. Since P802.3ae is full duplex
> point to point, for those people that want remote fiber trouble shooting
> functionality, the WAN compatible PHY will work very well in the LAN.
Perhaps you could explain this further. An example of how a SONET compatible LAN
is easier to troubleshoot and a cost effective design would be a good starting
point. Please be specific.. I'd like to know specifically what ease of
troubleshooting I gain by this and what the relaltive cost you think would buy
> present, there has not been proposed a "WAN only PHY". Since the proposed
> WAN compatible PHY is also compatible with LAN implementations, I propose
> that we call it the "WLAN" PHY and the LAN only PHY can remain the "LAN"
In my opinion, WLAN will only serve to confuse the user community. In fact, if
its a WAN and LAN PHY, then why not a uniPHY? Or is it a WAN PHY that can be
used in a LAN if I so choose thus WLAN?
> By the way, I am looking forward to when the service providers that are
> offering retail customer network services over GbE MANs start having
> maintenence issues.
What useful pupose does this kind of comentary serve to the group? You're
looking forward to it, hoping they'll fail so you can gloat about it? I think
you're statements would be much more credible without this.
> GbE works extreemely well, and is easy to set up and
> operate, if there are no problems. When problems do occur, GbE becomes
> extreemely difficult and labor intensive to support.
I'd like to draw from your experience and knowledge in this area and again I
ask for some detailed explanation. If you feel this is obvious to everyone else
on the reflector besides me, I'd be happy to receive your answer directly. The
way I see it, perhaps in the WAN this difficulty is true when there are multiple
spans of fiber hundreds of Km in length, but in the LAN carefully designed
networks using different phyical paths between sites, redundancy as needed, and
well designed network management usually minimize outages and simplifies
troubleshooting. I know its not as robust as SONET, but I know of at least one
vendor who provides equipment with uni-directional link failure detetction, and
I know of at least one network management vendor that offers a product that can
isolate faults down to the fiber, port, swicth and so on. There are also
features for fast failover, in fact I believe in your presentation at the
January interrim (bynum_1_0100.pdf) you show on slides 11 and 12 that
restoration of the data link layer is comparable within a couple of hundred
microseconds. I admit I have some trouble understanding some portion of the two
slides such as what 8B/10B optical signalling restoration time means, so if you
could explain that as well, I'd appreciate it.
> Unlike most of the
> people in the group, I have actually been designing, building, and
> supporting large enterprise LANs, MANs, and WANs as a customer and user for
> . I am not showing disrespect for the high achievement and achidemic
> expertise of the group or individual of the P802.3ae TF.
> I do have
> disrespect for the inexperienced people that attempting to create service
> provider companies using GbE.
Again, this kind of commentary detracts from your credibility and serves no
useful purpose on the reflector in my opinion.
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Tolley <btolley@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 1:49 PM
> 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
> > 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
> > or dark wavelengths. The proof point for this is the 1000s of long
> > 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
> > 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