Re: Hari
Roy,
Once again... new thread time...
I thought that you had already understood that XAUI/XGXS were the architectural
interface/sublayer names suggested for the Hari interface, which was named by
Mr. Steve Haddock and derived from the movie: "When Harry met Sally". BTW, the
XGMII was referred to the Sali interface. I'll leave you to ponder the spelling
difference.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that "Since Hari could not get a
75% supporting vote". Could you please explain this? I've attended every 802.3
HSSG and 802.3ae meeting since the March, 1999 Call for Interest and I don't
remember any Hari motions.
My reference to a failed 802.3 HSSG motion was with respect to a short-haul
copper PMD, not to Hari. This motion was made in Montreal at the July, 1999
Plenary meeting:
Motion: Add to the list of objectives:
Support a link distance of at least 10 m on copper cable at ~10 Gb/s.
M: C. Di Minico
S: R. Taborek
Technical (>75%): For: 61 Against: 30 Abstain: 26
FAILS
Please note the high percentage of 'Fors'... Enough to pass most school bond
issues :-)
Please stop confusing me and the IEEE 802.3ae committee in general.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> Rich,
>
> As you remind us, short haul copper 10Gbs was voted down as a PHY for P802.3ae. I also noticed that you included XAUI with Hari.
> Does this mean that you acknowledge that XAUI is actually another form of Hari? Since Hari could not get a 75% supporting vote,
> does this mean that you recognize XAUI at that time, in its original form, could not have gotten a 75% favorable vote? The
> technology hasn't changed. The customer base hasn't changed. The objectives haven't changed. If nothing has changed, then XAUI
> should not get 75% favorable vote now. Thank you for acknowledging that Hari/XAUI has already failed to meet the 75% voting
> requirement once, and could well have failed again in March, if it had been allowed to go to vote.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@earthlink.net>
> To: <stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 2:29 PM
> Subject: Re: 850 nm solutions
>
> >
> > All
> >
> > This note is along the same lines as Ms. Pat Thaler and Mr. Rick Walker's
> > comments regarding the suitability and economic benefit of providing a short
> > (e.g. to ~20 meters) coax-based copper solution at 10 Gbps.
> >
> > At it's April meetings in San Diego, the Fibre Channel Copper Working Group
> > approved a work item to document a Hari/XAUI coax-based copper PMD for it's
> > approved 10 Gigabit Fibre Channel project. The specific 10 GFC objective calls
> > for a 15 meter support distance. A call for proposals is outstanding. The T11.2
> > Copper Working Group will next meet in Boise, ID on June 6, 2000.
> >
> > I understand fully that this same solution has been voted down by the IEEE 802.3
> > HSSG and I am NOT trying to dredge it up again. The purpose of this note is
> > simply to present related industry activities for short-haul 10 Gbps
> > interconnects.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> > >
> > > Infiniband will be using something very similar to the HARI interface over
> > > short copper links though the distance goal is, I think, 6 m. To travel over
> > > short copper cables, it may make sense to use a 4 wide signal from HARI
> > > rather than 10 Gbit/s serial.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rick Walker [mailto:walker@cutter.hpl.hp.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 4:58 PM
> > > To: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: 850 nm solutions
> > >
> > > > Jim Tatum writes:
> > > > But why does it matter? Why limit the users? Why not put in the table. It
> > > > costs nothing. Just put in what the model and data tell us to. It is
> > > > my opinion that a large percentage of 10GB style links are going to be
> > > > very short, less than 10m. If you look at the way many fiber ports
> > > > are being used today, many are in the 10m range. Also, since copper
> > > > cables are going to be EXTREMELY challanged to go that distance at
> > > > 10GB, why not let the market choose the lowest cost solution using
> > > > 850nm VCSELs and 62.5um fiber?
> > >
> > > FWIW, I agree that 10G across CAT-6 or other twisted pair would be very
> > > difficult. However 10G across coaxial cable is fairly easy. It can be
> > > done with 0.1" diameter coaxial cable using simple NRZ data encoding. A
> > > simple FIR pre-equalizer can double this distance. Without a doubt
> > > copper would be the cheapest solution for links under 10M. I would
> > > estimate a mature chipset price of about $50 per end and $15 for the
> > > cable.
> > >
> > > This performance was demonstrated in 1998 using a 25GHz bipolar chipset.
> > > See: Walker, R. C., K. Hsieh, T. A. Knotts and C. Yen, "A 10Gb/s
> > > Si-Bipolar TX/RX Chipset for Computer Data Transmission" , ISSCC Digest
> > > of Technical Papers 41(February 1998), 302,303,450.
> > >
> > > A Copper PHY was voted down by the committee because it was thought that
> > > there was no market for this type of low-cost short distance link.
> > >
> > > kind 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
-------------------------------------------------------
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