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

Re: What is 802.3ae WAN-PHY?


Yes, I am assuming that the ELTE has something to do with Ethernet.  
As I understand, the emerging non-muxing LTE requires SONET-
compliant input. I would like to remind you that at present I see no 
SONET-lite standard in the real world.
Therefore, at least you need to customize the Ethernet side of the 
non-muxing LTE to accomodate +/-100ppm SONET-imcompliant input.  

I don't believe this customization makes sense because;

(1) it will bring nothing other than confusion, as Jay and Gary has 
    pointed out.

(2) There seems to be little cost advantage in +/-100ppm as Nevin has
    pointed out.

Please do not force us to stick in SONET framing optimized for the
legacy synchronous transport systems.
You are free to invest both the SONET-imcompliant PHY and the ELTE, 
but please understand that there are other carriers who must compete 
with each other and hence require inexpensive future-proof OAM&P 
signaling for datacom WAN.  To drive it, I will propose SONET-
compatible XGENIE that enables us to carry SONET overhead bytes or 
its equivalence without using the SONET framing.  I don't think 
this is a full greenfield development; just a kind of 1:1 mapping 
between XGENIE ordered sets and SONET overhead bytes.

Best Regards,

At 2:47 PM -0500 00.4.6, Roy Bynum wrote:
> Osamu,
> Are you making the assumption that ELTE has anything to do with Ethernet?
> ELTE is a fake name that was used by the nomenclature group to as a place
> holder for a non-muxing LTE.  The ELTE is refereeing to the new class of
> SONET/SDH optical switch gear that has been developed specifically to
> support high bandwidth concatenated services.  There are several telephony
> vendors that are developing this equipment with the view to start deployment
> this year to support the OC192C/STM64C Packet Over SONET/SDH interfaces for
> Internet Routers.
> Please make the assumption that SONET framing will be used.  Otherwise it
> will require a full greenfield development cycle and extended deployment
> cycle for the long haul transport systems.  This is in violation of the
> objective to use existing technology where ever possible.
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> ----- Original Message -----