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

RE: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY

From below:

> In other words, the unified PHY that Jonathan Thatcher is wanting is
> already the WAN compatible PHY.


Can you shed any light on this?

Nope, not a glimmer. Sounds like a scrambled link to me. :-)

Even so, what Jonathan wants is no more relivant than what any other voting
member wants. 

What the Chair wants is a solution to the objectives (all the objectives)
according to the schedule which meets all the criteria and will get 75% of
the vote. This isn't new news to anyone, is it?  :-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Taborek
Sent: 3/25/00 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY


Thanks for the clarification. It appears that you are now in agreement
with Mr.
Andreas Bechtolsheim's original statement that the UniPHY proposed by
Mr. Howard
Frazier, et. al. affects the transport of Ethernet over SONET to the
tune of
only 3% (3.125% to be exact) overhead. I also agree that this is a
with the WAN compatible PHY, which is not LAN compatible.

I have a few additional comments below:

Jonathan, Question for you below.


Best Regards,

Roy Bynum wrote:
> Rich,
> A LAN only PHY that is at 10Gbps transfer rate is exactly what I am
> about.  The proposed "UniPHY" is ~3% less than the original proposal
for a
> WAN compatible PHY which, as you pointed out, is less than the
original LAN
> PHY to start with.

This appears to be a good compromise. Full 10 Gbps for the LAN and only
penalty for the WAN.
> As far as a unified PHY is concerned, no one has said that the WAN
> compatible PHY could not be used in a privately owned fiber systems,
> the LAN PHY.

I have absolutely no problem with this.

> The WAN compatible PHY just has ~5% less MAC transfer rate. As far as
> I know, there has never been a presentation that would only work in
> WAN, ie. a WAN only PHY.  This understanding makes the WAN compatible
> PHY functional as a reduced rate LAN PHY.

The WAN PHY is not compatible with the LAN since it is speaks SONET. The
does not transport SONET. The LAN transports Ethernet (in most cases).
Am I
missing something?  

> In other words, the unified PHY that Jonathan Thatcher is wanting is
> already the WAN compatible PHY.


Can you shed any light on this?

> I think that the preferences that came out of the survey that Jonathan
> indicates that the majority of the group would prefer the WAN
compatible PHY
> because it will support both the LAN and WAN implimentations at only
> overhead cost.  From what I have been able to determine, the actual
> implementation costs seem to be about the same.  The second
alternative is
> seperate LAN only and WAN compatible PHYs.

What survey are you referring to? The only survey I know of:,
shows a
WAN PHY in dead last place and a UniPHY in first place. 

The second alternative is again a UniPHY with a 10% penalty.

The third alternative endorses separate LAN only and WAN compatible

> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> --
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > I believe that you have overhead sources twisted a bit.
> >
> > All proposals for the LAN PHY support a MAC data transfer rate of 10
> > are you referring to when you say ~10% slower?  The only thing
> > limiting the MAC's accepted 10 Gbps data rate is legacy SONET
> > and it's inherent overhead.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > Roy Bynum wrote:
> > >
> > > Andreas,
> > >
> > > The real question is, do we need a LAN PHY that is ~10% slower
than the
> > > 10.000 Gigbit transfer rate that was so important in June, July,
> > > September, and November of 1999?  Did all of that support for
> > > Gigabit suddenly disappear?  It makes me very suspicious.  The
> > > additional ~3% loss to the WAN compatable PHY is a seperate issue.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
> > > --
> > > >
> > > > Roy,
> > > >
> > > > the question is do we need to create two separate PHY standards
> > > > because of a 3% difference in transmission efficiency.
> > > >
> > > > If you look at the results of the Albuquerque straw poll,
> > > > the majority of 802.3ae appears to answer this question with
> > > >
> > > > Andy
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