Re: 10 G.Eth over Sonet DATS

[Roy Bynum <RBYNUM/0004245935@MCIMAIL.COM>]

Bryan,

The SONET DATS system that I have removes the 802.3 framing from the
8/10B signalling and maps/encapsulates it directly to the concatenated
SONET STSs. The only thing that is maintained is the interframe gap.
Otherwise it is the same what originates from the data source. 10GbE
would work well as an encapsulated SONET transport, although I would
be concerned about the cost of that for LAN environments.

                                        Thank you,
                                        Roy Bynum

Date:     Tue May 18, 1999 10:14 am  CST
Source-Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:35:37 -0500
From:     bgregory
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: bgregory@molex.com
 
TO:       "bill.st.arnaud"
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca
TO:     * ROY BYNUM / MCI ID: 424-5935
CC:       IEEE HSSG
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org
Subject:  10 G.Eth over Sonet DATS
Message-Id: 99051816145745/INTERNETGWDN3IG
Source-Msg-Id: <0010F6AE.C21030@molex.com>
 
     Hi Roy,
     
     Quick question...  Does a G.Eth signal at 1.25 Gb/s efficiently fit 
     inside of a Sonet DATS frame?  I'd guess that only one G.Eth signal 
     could be embedded in a single OC-48 signal (is this correct?).  This 
     would seem to leave a large percentage of the frame unused.
     
     QUESTION: What 10 G.Eth data rate (data plus overhead) would you 
     recommend for efficient loading into a Sonet OC-48 or OC-192 DATS 
     frame?  Is it important to be able to load both OC-192 and OC-48, or 
     should we focus on just OC-192?
     
     Regards,
     Bryan Gregory
     bgregory@molex.com
     
     -------------------------
     
     Bill,
     
     Internet IP will continue to be what the market requirements reflect.
     Slow restoration times are acceptable in that environment. The UUNet
     Long Haul GbE is part of what I am doing. I am the one that put the
     Long Haul Optical switching/Metro DWDM/SONET DATS evaluation of GbE
     together. 
     
     As a bit irony, dependable GbE is turning out to be less expensive
     than undependable IP over TDM, ATM, or POS. Unless MPLS comes in a
     respectable price break, GbE over Native Data SONET DATS will still be
     less expensive. 
     
     In addition to being less expensive, GbE over Native Data SONET DATS
     will provide "subscription control" though "flow control" That
     "subscription control" will prevent over-subscribing the WAN links,
     which is a big problem for enterprise data network designers and
     architects.  Combine that with "priority queueing" and most of what
     MPLS was supposed to do has already been accomplished by GbE.  You
     guys as IEEE have done a greater job than you knew.
     
     Dependable, high quality transport of Native data traffic such as GbE
     and 10GbE is probably going to be a different market, one that "best
     effort" is unacceptable to. If there is a market that provides the
     profit margin that will sustain 10GbE, it will not be the Internet as
     it is today. 
     
     I do know that I have been given the requiement that carriers can not
     support a data service over long haul systems that does not provide
     "SONET like" functionality. The reason that I joined this study group
     is to provide that insight to the standards developers. If that is GbE
     or 10GbE over SONET then the issue is already resolved. All that
     remains is to determine what the LAN application requirements are,
     then the standard can be defined.
     
     
     Date:     Mon May 17, 1999  3:23 pm  CST
     Source-Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:17:51 -0400
     Fromm:     bill.st.arnaud
               EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
               MBX: bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca
      
     TO:     * ROY BYNUM / MCI ID: 424-5935
     Subject:  RE: A telephony carrier industry perspective
     Message-Id: 99051721234042/INTERNETGWDN1IG
     Source-Msg-Id: 
     <NBBBJIMEPHPGCNGAHPMFIEIJELAA.bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca>
     U-Importance: Normal
     U-X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0)
     U-X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
     U-X-MSMail-priority: Normal
     U-X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
      
     Roy:
     
     Again no disagreement.  I don't think traditional SONET or ATM 
     networks will
     disappear. The model we advocate is the same that Frontier is now 
     deploying:
     IP/DWDM for best efforts, slow restoral traffic on one set of 
     wavelengths,
     IP over SONET on another set of wavelengths for those services that 
     need
     fast restoral and security of SONET, and IP over ATM over SONET on 
     another
     set of wavelengths for fine grained QoS services.
     
     I agree with you that the driving force for GbE is cost.  It makes a
     dramatic difference to the overall cost of the network.
     
     But I believe GbE can also make an equal dramatic difference on the
     transport side on medium, long haul links up to 1000 km.  Your sister
     company UUNet has already demonstrated that on some long haul GbE 
     systems.
     But I agree with you this type of link is probably only good for best
     efforts IP traffic.
     
     Bill
     
     -------------------------------------------
     Bill St Arnaud
     Director Network Projects
     CANARIE
     bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca
     http://tweetie.canarie.ca/~bstarn