Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
I am not attempting to unjustly flame you! I am trying to point out a miss
advertised perception that you (and others) are presenting. Specifically,
that a LAN implementation can not be done with the SONET scramble PHY of
P802.3ae. You are making very generalized statements in an attempt to
distance Ethernet from SONET. I might as well say that Ethernet does not
support Fibre Channel or any of its technologies, and I would be as correct
as you are! Ethernet is never converted to SONET and SONET is never
converted to Ethernet! Your statement:
"Of course the LAN supports SONET. Ethernet does so today at 10 Mbps, with
Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet. Conversion to/from SONET is seamlessly
and SONET is NEVER deployed in the LAN."
(I have blocked it out below so there will no mistake of a misquote.
Everyone can reference the previous message in this thread to verify.)
This is a commonly presented perception that is so wrong that it is
Again I will reference the OSI model. SONET is layer 1, just like 8B10B.
Ethernet is layer 2. Ethernet, being a layer 2 protocol is on top of any
layer 1 coding that is placed under it, 8B10B or SONET. To be specific the
proposed WAN compatible PHY is NOT full SONET. To be specific, other than
in having a more fixed transfer rate, the proposed WAN compatible PHY is
just as compatible with LAN implementation as 8B10B is. Like 8B10B, to make
it have a 10.000 Gb MAC transfer rate, all it would take is to clock it at a
higher signaling rate. (Paul Bottroff, David Martin, and others can verify
the feasibility of this.)
As the person that is identified more than most as a proponent of, and
defendant of 8B10B, Fibre Channel and InfiniBand, which you are always
referencing, you become the focal point of those that would attempt to
separate 8B10B from being the default encoding in the perception of the
members of the P802.3ae Task Force.
If you want, I can spend time looking through all of the e-mails and find
the one that you refer to how long you have been working with Fibre Channel,
including years with IBM, which also indicate a personal attachment, almost
"fondness" for the technology. (Personally, I also think that Fibre Channel
is a very good technology. I just don't want to build a large extended,
long distance, LAN infrastructure using it.)
Again, I am attempting to open the perception of the members of this TF to
alternatives of thinking. I have had the opportunity to work with a lot of
different transport technologies, perhaps more than some of the individuals
in the group.
I do not have a particular "attachment" or "fondness" for any technology. I
am pragmatic and recognize that each has its advantages. SONET and SDH well
suited for the service industry transport infrastructure that is currently
in place. Full SONET and SDH are not as well suited for data only at the
data switch interface; which is why I proposed a reduced function over head,
or "SONET Lite" for the P802.3ae WAN compatible PHY.
If I have unjustly angered you or others of this TF, I apologize. I have a
great respect for you personally and for your expertise in Fibre Channel and
its related technologies. I would like for you to reconsider the defacto
attitude that you and others have presented relative to the relationship
between Ethernet and 8B10B encoding.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Taborek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: HSSG <email@example.com>; Jonathan Thatcher
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
> Please never directly quote things that I never said.
> You'll find in my immediately prior communication on this thread that I
> "The LAN does not transport SONET". This is a very accurate statement. You
> somehow misconstrued this and attributed a direct quote to me replacing my
> "transport" with "support".
| > Of course the LAN supports SONET. Ethernet does so today at 10 Mbps,
with Fast |
| > Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet. Conversion to/from SONET is seamlessly
| > and SONET is NEVER deployed in the LAN.
> 10 Gigabit Ethernet objectives include direct SUPPORT of Wide Area
> these include, but are not limited to, SONET.
> At this point, please allow me to remind you of reflector usage rules that
> personally feel that you are in gross violation of. I will quote Mr. David
> "Communications are expected to be respectful, dignified, and germane to
> subject of the reflector.
> The reflector is not a 'free speech' forum. Subscriptions may be revoked
> inappropriate communications. These include, but are not limited to:
> advertising, soliciting, spamming, flaming, whining, and disparaging
> I strongly object to your personal attacks on me. Our chair, Mr. Jonathan
> Thatcher, is directly copied as a warning to you.
> Best Regards,
> 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@nSerial.com
> Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com