RE: What is 802.3ae WAN-PHY?
Hi Dae, Hi Jonathan,
Thank you for your feedback. Some of my comments are intersperced
bellow. Sorry for my short reply, but I am now trying hard to figure
out pros and cons of the SONET framer approach and the XGENIE approach
with the help of another valuable feedbacks from the SONET-framer side
(my thanks to Paul, Dave, and Roy). I think I will be able to post
the result in a few days.
At 1:16 PM -0700 00.4.8, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
> I assume the following from what I have seen thus far:
> 1. To adopt this might not require 802.3ae to write a new set of
> line/path/etc management primitives.
I think at least we will not need re-write ITU-T G774 series where
the management object of network element is defined. As for ITU-T
G707 where the SDH overhead bytes are defined and allocated, we
need further investigation about how far we can make the mapping
> 2. A direct mapping would allow the "WAN" and the "LAN" systems to link in
> a more direct way at, effectively, a lower level.
> 3. It permits greater flexibility in where we might choose to architect the
> SONET framer in order to optimize the solution. It might even permit
> multiple instantiations.
Good point. If the SONET adopts the Ethernet packet adaptation with
IPG transparency such as 64b/66b on SONET by Uni-PHY, Ethernet PHY can
enjoy end-end path signaling without any mapping. This is your
muliple instatiations, right?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dae Young KIM [mailto:dykim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Anyway, these bytes are only XENIE specific and imbedded into
>> IPG. No mapping to
>> SONET overheads. XENIE management bytes are transferred
>> trasparently over SONET to
>> the other end until you meet another XENIE.
I still reserve my final decision which would be supportive for
full-SONET; 64/66 or EOS. The latter don't support IPG transparency
and hence here I provide the mapping.
>> If you could somehow manage to push your XENIE (or only its
>> features) into MAC or
>> RS(Reconciliation Layer), then thus management-enforced
>> Ethernet MAC frames would
>> be able to be poured directly into the SONET frame.
As Rich has already responded, RS would be better than MAC for
the instantiation. Preserving MAC is clearly stated in five
>> Osamu Ishida wrote:
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
TEL +81-468-59-3263 FAX +81-468-55-1282