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

Re: Hari


I believe that the origin of Hari was explained in detail at several 802.3 HSSG
meetings that you were in attendance, but I'll do it again here since you may
not have heard.

The effort which was eventually named Hari was initiated by a significantly
large group of folks from the the 802.3 HSSG. The scope of the effort was to
further develop interfaces proposed to the HSSG earlier. These interfaces
included those previously called the parallel and serial GMII.

A separate but related interface which would be addressed by this effort was the
development of a 4-lane Medium interface which could support WWDM, Parallel
Optics, or Short-Haul Copper. 

Experts were also enlisted from related standards and industry efforts including
Fibre Channel, InfiniBand, and OIF.

The effort was highly successful and has resulted in the XAUI/XGXS proposal
which is endorsed by a very large number and wide range of supporters.

Could you please explain some of your comments for my benefit and the benefit of
the committee to help clear up your confusion with XAUI?:

1) What is it that you believe you're going to be paying for that is being
developed for another use? (You seem to imply that the other use is InfiniBand).

Comment: Isn't it in the best interest of 802.3ae to leverage development of
common technology for multiple widespread applications including LAN, MAN/WAN,
and SAN, with SAN including both System and Storage Area Networks? This will
surely REDUCE the cost of 10 GbE technology and NOT result in a premium to you
for the development of technology for another use.

2) Can you somehow quantify or substantiate the increased price of a product
that you will be receiving based on Hari? Please compare this to an alternate
technology which addresses the same set of requirements. If you can't do this, I
assume that this statement has no basis whatsoever.

3) What are the ideas you have with respect to: "an 802.3 Ethernet product that
treated the interface to the optical domain as a digital optical system, not an
analog copper system, which you refer to for the use of HARI."? I'm specifically
interested in the interface you refer to as a "digital optical system". Do you
have a proposal for such an interface? If you can't explain this or produce a
proposal shortly, I'll have to disregard this suggestion. 

4) I've been listening to you and your requirements very carefully and have been
working on the best possible proposals to meet HSSG objectives in a manner
meeting or exceeding the five PAR criteria. These proposals, including Hari, are
deemed by many 802.3ae voting members to be the best possible solutions for the
10 GbE LAN and MAN/WAN space. What exactly do you believe Hari does to not meet
'global market requirements'?  

5) What vendors are you referring to that: "have already lost their market share
in the Internet backbone, and they are about to start loosing it at the access
edge as well."? How is this relevant to Hari?

6) "History has shown that customers will get what they want one way or
another." What exactly is it that you want??? It's very difficult to derive from
your rantings and ravings on a technical reflector.

Best Regards,

Roy Bynum wrote:
> Pat,
> For Infiniband,  I think that HARI is a very good solution.  I question the way that it was introduced and developed as part of the
> effort in something that is not Infiniband.  If people want to make products for Infiniband, I have no problem with that.  As a
> customer, I question the motivations of my vendors to have me pay for the development of technology that was actually intended for
> another use.  I wonder how much that has already increased the price of the product that I will be receiving.  I wonder even more
> how much the vendor was actually trying to develop something for my use instead of somebody else, and gave me, the customer, the
> "left overs".  I wonder how much better the product, that I may buy, would have been better if the vendor had not been developing
> technology for another use.
> As a customer, I was hoping to receive an 802.3 Ethernet product that treated the interface to the optical domain as a digital
> optical system, not an analog copper system, which you refer to for the use of HARI.  As a customer I was hoping that the vendors
> would listen to me and my requirements and look at it as an opportunity to enter a market that is as large as the global Internet,
> instead of staying in the collective enterprise space.  Vendors that are not looking at the market correctly have already lost their
> market share in the Internet backbone, and they are about to start loosing it at the access edge as well.  History has shown that
> customers will get what they want one way or another.
> The response of a BIG customer,
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) <pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Rick Walker <walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:08 PM
> Subject: RE: 850 nm solutions
> >
> >
> > Infiniband will be using something very similar to the HARI interface over
> > short copper links though the distance goal is, I think, 6 m. To travel over
> > short copper cables, it may make sense to use a 4 wide signal from HARI
> > rather than 10 Gbit/s serial.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Walker [mailto:walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 4:58 PM
> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: 850 nm solutions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jim Tatum writes:
> > > But why does it matter? Why limit the users? Why not put in the table. It
> > > costs nothing.  Just put in what the model and data tell us to.  It is
> > > my opinion that a large percentage of 10GB style links are going to be
> > > very short, less than 10m.  If you look at the way many fiber ports
> > > are being used today, many are in the 10m range.  Also, since copper
> > > cables are going to be EXTREMELY challanged to go that distance at
> > > 10GB, why not let the market choose the lowest cost solution using
> > > 850nm VCSELs and 62.5um fiber?
> >
> > FWIW, I agree that 10G across CAT-6 or other twisted pair would be very
> > difficult.  However 10G across coaxial cable is fairly easy.  It can be
> > done with 0.1" diameter coaxial cable using simple NRZ data encoding.  A
> > simple FIR pre-equalizer can double this distance.  Without a doubt
> > copper would be the cheapest solution for links under 10M.  I would
> > estimate a mature chipset price of about $50 per end and $15 for the
> > cable.
> >
> > This performance was demonstrated in 1998 using a 25GHz bipolar chipset.
> > See: Walker, R. C., K. Hsieh, T. A. Knotts and C. Yen, "A 10Gb/s
> > Si-Bipolar TX/RX Chipset for Computer Data Transmission" , ISSCC Digest
> > of Technical Papers 41(February 1998), 302,303,450.
> >
> > A Copper PHY was voted down by the committee because it was thought that
> > there was no market for this type of low-cost short distance link.
> >
> > kind regards,
> > --
> > Rick Walker
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