RE: XGMII electricals
Thanks for detailed and insightful summary. I like to
add that our straw poll in New Orleans meeting was to indicate
preferences. We all agreed (w/o any discussions) that we will
go back and study the issues and re-affirm SSTL or formalize HSTL 1.8V.
In the mean time, we all agreed no draft change. This includes the
I/O technology and timing (source centered versus source sync.).
If the XGMII is viewed as more of short term, i.e. early
10G application, then it may not make sense to formalize 1.8V HSTL
operation anyway, since today's technology would favor SSTL over HSTL.
It is the anticipation of future mainstream CMOS technology that
popularized a version of HSTL. The industry will adopt outside of
the scope of IEEE for these popular interfaces (good examples, RMII,
SMII, RGMII, GBIC instead of exposed GMII, etc).
That said, I support leaving the spec. as SSTL.
1. Our industry has been resilient in adopting new I/O technology
when interface spec. out-lives the chosen I/O.
2. HSTL 1.8V is not a referenceable standard.
3. Between two problems: Backward compatibility and New specification
It is easier to design a new I/O cell that is backward compatible
than specifying I/O parameters that were never implemented.
*. And although this should *NOT* be a standard body issues, but
multiple vendor implementations of XGMII (MAC and XAUI) are starting
to be available and their interoperability are being tested.
Yongbum "Yong" Kim (408)570-0888 x141
Chief Technical Officer (408)570-0880 fax
Allayer Technologies Corp. ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxx
107 Bonaventura Drive http://www.allayer.com
San Jose, CA 95134
==This Message is forwarded by RoX Switch at 1 Gb/s.==
From: Grow, Bob [SMTP:bob.grow@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 1:07 PM
Subject: XGMII electricals
Implementing the XGMII concensus of the Task Force expressed through straw
polls in New Orleans is a problem. In fact, I would characterize the actions
we took in New Orleans to be an example of group think gone wild. We had a
comprehensive SSTL specification in the draft, but made the straw poll votes
to change on concepts, not proposed specifications.
There is no standard for HSTL at 1.8 volts (the preferred voltage per straw
poll), nor did the TF select any other parameters of the electrical
specifications. (Class I, 1.5 volt HSTL as specified in EIA/JESD8-6 is the
closest standardized alternative that the team working on clause 46 could
find). Because we couldn't find a standard to reference and the Task Force
didn't endorse a complete set of 1.8 volt specifications, there was no way
an HSTL electrical specification could be inserted into the draft without
adding a lot of technical material that hadn't been endorsed by the
committee. Therefore, all you will find in Draft 1.1 on HSTL is an editor's
note describing the situation.
Most discussion supports the idea that the XGMII electrical interface is for
near term usage (with continued use as an module to module logic interface
within a chip). Implemeters expect the electrical interface to be supported
by I/O devices in quick turn silicon libraries. Some participants in the
editorial session thought ASIC vendors might have a 1.8 volt HSTL derived
from the above referenced specification, but weren't sure of any vendors
supporting it (for inclusion in the standard it should be supported by many
We have a similar problem with the clock alignment were the straw poll
endorsed a change without any specifications to implement the change (e.g.,
As it now stands, I would vote against going to Task Force ballot. It would
be a shame for TF ballot to be delayed because of the absence of XGMII
electricals. I see three alternatives that would allow us to go forward to
1. Return to the SSTL specifications of Draft 1.0
2. Reference HSTL at 1.5 volts per EIA/JESD8-6 and select from the options
within that specification.
3. Someone presents a detailed proposal including all appropriate
specifications (timing, thresholds, AC and DC characteristics, termination,
As the clause editor, I will be proposing alternative 1 in Tampa unless
participants come through with presentations (sufficiently detailed to go to
TF ballot), and the Task Force endorses the specifications presented.
Editor Clause 46