Re: Interface reality check

[Dae Young KIM <dykim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Osamu,

I like your idea.

The bit-error-rate monitoring of XGENIE need not be one as rigorous as SONET BIP.
You might like to exploit the inherent error-monitoring capabilities of LAN PCS
coders, like 64B/66B or (8,10) block codes.

Such error monitoring itself is a fairly useful (though not as accurate as SONET
BIP) BER indicator accurate enough for data communication, I think. By exploiting
such code-inherent capability, you need not add extra hardware logics to
accomplish the task in your XGENIE.

(BTW, my first name is Dae Young, two syllables. Sorry.)

Osamu ISHIDA wrote:

> No, XGENIE will not support these strict sense of BIP.
> It will just support the way of monitoring the bit-error-rate.
> Hence I have used the term 'loose mapping' in my previous mail.
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02168.html

--
Best Regards,

Dae Young
http://ccl.cnu.ac.kr/~dykim/