Re: Interface reality check
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have to apologize for having you all suffer through same basic questions and
answers.
Roy,
You have asked me this same question and I have responded to it on several
occasions including the following reflector notes:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg01527.html
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg01732.html
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg01777.html
8B/10B is proposed as the transmission code for the following IEEE P802.3ae
proposals:
a) The optional XAUI/XGXS interface;
b) The WWDM PCS;
c) The Parallel Optics PCS;
Proposals for the LAN and native Ethernet or Ethernet mapped to SONET MAN/WAN
based on 64B/66B in no way require or associated with 8B/10B.
As I have explained previously, 8B/10B as well as 64B/66B are transmission codes
capable of transporting control information in band. This control information is
used to represent packet delimiters, indicate packets with error conditions and
transparently (to the MAC) use IPG space to manage link functions.
Both 8B/10B and 64B/66B transmission code enjoy the support of a significant
number or IEEE P802.3ae voters as indicated by the names listed on the following
presentations:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/taborek_1_0300.pdf
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/frazier_1_0300.pdf
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/bhatt_1_0300.pdf
See my additional comments below:
--
Best Regards,
Rich
Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> Rich,
>
> You are making statements that are not based in fact.
Please list all the statements that you believe that I am making which are not
based on fact. Otherwise, please refrain from making such personal disparaging
statements like this with no basis. Your form of communication has no business
in a professional technical forum such as this reflector.
> The 64B/66B proposals are based on the continuance of the LAN only PHY block
> coding schemes. Rich Walker has stated that when he made the 64B/66B he did
> not take into account the possibility of the absence of 8B10B Hari.
If this is indeed the case, then either Rick is an awesome architect and/or
8B/10B has managed to, once again, prove that it is a transmission code suitable
for a myriad of applications. I believe the "and" case to be true.
> The 8B10B block coding keeps getting brought back over and over again under
> different names. The only reason that this would happen is that it becomes
> obvious that the group as a whole did not support it in each of its
> previous iterations.
"Hari" was clearly a label for a proposal since it was derived from the movie
"When Harry met Sally". XAUI/XGXS is the architectural designation agreed upon
by a number of IEEE 802.3ae committee members. Are there any other "different
names" that you are referring to that I may have missed?
> This has not happened to the WAN compatible PHY proposals that do not use
> block coding.
I implore you to confine your reflector discussion and comments to relevant
technical issues related to IEEE P802.3ae
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> --
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > Absolutely not.
> >
> > It should be clear that 64B/66B is a single lane serial transmission code
> > which is embodied in multiple strongly endorsed IEEE P802.3ea proposals.
> > These include:
> >
> > a) LAN Serial PHY:
> > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/bhatt_1_0300.pdf
> > b) UniPHY:
> > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/frazier_1_0300.pdf
> >
> > Note that the UniPHY covers all WAN application spaces, whether SONET/SDH
> > or native Ethernet.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > Roy Bynum wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > >
> > > Are you referring to the LAN only PHY?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
> > > --
> > > >
> > > > Rick,
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. I should have qualified as "pure scrambled" code. 64B/66B
> > > > certainly does not fit into this category. This is one of the clear
> > > > benefits of 3.125% overhead.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Rick Walker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed. Cool! 8B/10B plug: 8B/10B supports the detection of poor
> > > > > > signal quality on a link regardless of the information being
> > > > > > transported. In fact simple receiver circuitry can determine the
> > > > > > BER at the decoder in real time. Try that with a scrambled code ;_)
> > > > >
> > > > > 64b/66b also supports the measurement of bit error rate by looking
> > > > > at master transition violations regardless of the information
> > > > > being transmitted.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right, however, in that 64b/66b is not a pure scrambled
> > > > > code, but one augmented by periodic frame sync bits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rick Walker
-------------------------------------------------------
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