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

Re: Interface reality check




Roy,

I'm sorry about any confusion I am causing you and other members of the IEEE
802.3ae committee.

Page 1 (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/pdf00008.pdf) is
entitled: "Reference 10 GbE Implementation" and may be considered to be
representative of all PHY proposals presented to date to the HSSG or IEEE
P802.3ae.

Pages 2 through 7, in staying with this reflector discussion thread,
specifically address control information transport via 64B/66B transmission code
in compliance with the reference 10 GbE Implementation shown in page 1.

64B/66B transmission code is embodied in a proposal by Mr. Howard Frazier to the
IEEE P802.3ae: "UniPHY - 10 Gb/s LAN/WAN PHY Proposal",
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/frazier_1_0300.pdf

The latter proposal enjoys the support of many IEEE 802.3ae voters and meets the
following HSSG objectives:

 A LAN PHY, operating at a data rate of 10.000 Gb/s
 A WAN PHY, operating at a data rate compatible with the payload rate of
OC-192c/SDH VC-4-64c

The one objective it fails miserably at is the one under which the two latter
objectives are listed. That is:

Define two families of PHYs.

The UniPHY instead meets these two objectives in a single, unified PHY.

Why do you feel that the IEEE P802.3ae UniPHY proposal should be ignored?

Best Regards,
Rich
   
--

Roy Bynum wrote:
> 
> Rich,
> 
> I hate to correct you from your own drawings.  The only coding scheme that
> you referenced at the PCS in the diagrams was 64B66B!  Look at the top of
> each drawing.  Only the reference drawing does not reference a 64B/66B PCS.
> The drawings and your whole discussion is based on the LAN only PHY.  As
> such it can be ignored by the development of the WAN compatible PHY.
> 
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> 
> --
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > Short answer: No.
> >
> > Long answer: The drawings referenced represent all 10 GbE proposed PHY's
> > including the one I'm assming you're referring to as the "frame stuffed...
> > WAN compatible PHY". XGMII and XAUI/XGXS are proposed as optional
> > interfaces capable of supporting all PCS/PMA/PMD combinations to the
> > best of my knowledge. The drawings clearly illustrate all combinations
> > of XGMII and XAUI/XGXS supporting the PCS/PMA/PMD sublayers.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > Roy Bynum wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > >
> > > I notice in your drawings, you do not have the frame stuffed PHY as
> proposed
> > > originally for the WAN compatible PHY.  Does this mean that your
> proposals
> > > here are for the LAN only PHY specifically and not other PHYs?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
                                    
------------------------------------------------------- 
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            http://www.nSerial.com