RE: Issues concerning 10GbE speed standards
- To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>, Curt Berg <firstname.lastname@example.org>, HSSG <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: Issues concerning 10GbE speed standards
- From: "Rogers, Shawn" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:23:47 -0500
- Sender: email@example.com
Sounds like we have a need for an ad hoc.
From: Rich Taborek [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 6:41 PM
To: Curt Berg; HSSG
Subject: Re: Issues concerning 10GbE speed standards
In addition, to really allow several competing physical layer
I suggest discussing a common transceiver interface, similar in nature to
TBI of GbE.
Curt Berg wrote:
> >I think multiuple competing solutions and a "let the market decide" is a
> >sure recipe for disaster.
> Well Colin,
> Just to refresh your mind:
> It was not that long ago since VG-Anylan was competing with 100Base-TX,
> and TX, T2 and T4 were competing physical standard.
> Personally I don't consider that a disaster in the market place!
> If you don't give freedom to people to design what they believe they
> need in their market segment, I'm convinced standardization will
> take longer.
> So I would prefer one 10GMII, and have several competing physical
> implementation. Then you will really see who follows the KISS principal.
> -Curt Berg-
> Extreme Networks
> >It guarantees inoperable solutions and promotes market confusion.
> >Making decisions among competing techincal solutions is a tough but
> >necessary part of the standards process.
> >At 01:42 PM 6/28/99 -0700, BRIAN_LEMOFF@HP-PaloAlto-om16.om.hp.com wrote:
Richard Taborek Sr. Tel: 650 210 8800 x101 or 408 370 9233
Principal Architect Fax: 650 940 1898 or 408 374 3645
Transcendata, Inc. Email: email@example.com
1029 Corporation Way http://www.transcendata.com
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4305 Alt email: firstname.lastname@example.org