|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Our WAN PHY proposal has been very clearly documented in:
The PCS functionality (encapsulation) was further presented in January in:
The PMA functionality (mapping into simplified STS-192c) was presented in March in:
supported by 15+ individuals. If you have any technical questions on clarity after
reviewing these documents, please itemize them and they will be addressed.
Regarding 10GE interworking with SONET, I addressed that in my reply to Gary.
Regarding the naming alternatives, I would agree that staying away from using the term
SONET would be wise.
David W. Martin
+1 613 765-2901
+1 613 763-2388 (fax)
From: Jones, Nevin R (Nevin) [SMTP:nrjones@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 6:03 PM
To: Martin, David [SKY:1I63-M:EXCH]; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; 'Gary Nicholl'
Cc: Jones, Nevin R (Nevin)
Subject: RE: Renaming the WAN PHY
Well put! You have hit on exactly what bothers me with with Dave's
characterization of the WAN PHY as not having to be "SONET compliant".
I believe that whether the inferface is "SONET Lite" or "compatible" it is
going to have to work with the existing deployed SONET interfaces.
It is precisely this sort of fuzziness about SONET "lite" that caused its
demise at the OIF last year.
> From: Gary Nicholl[SMTP:gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 5:59 PM
> To: David Martin; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Renaming the WAN PHY
> Having been down a similar path with POS (Packet-over-SONET) I don't see
> 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
> 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
> the appropriate Bellcore and ITU SONET/SDH standards.
> I think it would be very confusing to to have an interface that 'looks
> feels' like SONET but in fact isn't. If that is really the intent then I
> 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
> > 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
> > * higher jitter tolerance (i.e. >0.15UIpp of SONET, exact value still
> > * 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > they think WAN and on the basis of Paul Bottorf of Nortel,'s
> > 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
> > 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
> > fiber. The WAN PHY as stated in the goal does not address the total
> > 10GBE WAN market and confuses people.. This makes it a bad name in my
> > I do not think we necessarily need a motion to change the objective, but
> > think we need to choose our words carefully when we name the PHY that
> > objective signifies.
> > Bruce Cisco Systems