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

RE: Question about Link Fault Signalling


As a matter of fact the reason that we alternate ordered sets with idles is
so that there will be idles available to delete so we do expect to receive
ordered sets without intervening idles on occasion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Question about Link Fault Signalling


Good observation. Note that Idles may be deleted for clock rate
compensation, whereas ordered-sets may not. ODDDODDD may result if a
single Idle is deleted. 

Best Regards,

David Gross wrote:
> Hi Rich,
> I have a quick question about what I've read about Link Fault
> Signalling.
> In 46.2.6 it says that the RS examines data for status messages, and
> further that status messages are alternaed with idle messages so that it
> would look somehting like:
> Looking at Figure 49-7 for 64b/66b PCS it would seem that this
> corresponds to either a TYPE field of 0x2d or 0x4b (CCCCODDD & ODDDCCCC
> respectively).
> However, the 64b/66b code also allows for ODDDSDDD and ODDDODDD. Now,
> ODDDSDDD seems OK to me if it follows ODDDCCCC as this is still
> alternating idle and status. But, what I can't see, is what the RS would
> do upon recieving ODDDODDD since this is clearly not alternating between
> idle and status. When would we use this? How?
> Thanks,
> Dave Gross
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