Re: PMD discussion
Seto,
What you are saying is that it is only so that the WAN compatible PHY could be standardized to use the same XAUI as the LAN only,
Serial ONLY, PHY that the WIS was introduced, when the WAN compatible PHY implementers will probably not even use XAUI? How
convoluted is that? I thought, and perhaps quite a few other people thought that the whole reason for the "UniPHY" was to have only
ONE PHY, not two LAN only PHYs and one WAN compatible PHY with the WAN compatible PHY being force to share the same PCS coding of
only one of the LAN only PHYs, to the detriment of the WAN compatible PHY. If we are to have a "UniPHY" then it needs to be a
single PCS for all PHY/PMD combinations, otherwise there is not "UniPHY".
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seto, Koichiro" <seto@sj.hitachi-cable.com>
To: <ka@lucent.com>; <rabynum@mindspring.com>
Cc: <rtaborek@nserial.com>; <stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: PMD discussion
> [Date: 06/05/2000 From Seto]
>
> Roy and Kamran,
>
> Right or wrong, it has been my understanding the WWDM uses 8b10bx4ch coding.
> Serial LAN PHY uses 64B66B coding. WWDM is a different PHY.
>
> It is also my understanding that WWDM LAN PHY, Serial LAN PHY and Serial WAN
> PHY are UniPHYs in a way it can share the same XGMII and the optional XAUI
> interface. Before WIS is introduced, LAN PHY and WAN PHY could not share
> XAUI or XGMII because WAN PHY needed frame length information to encode a
> frame.
> To all, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Sincerely,
> Seto
>
> > Roy,
> >
> > I have the same concern.
> > CWDM uses a different code (8b/10b) than serial (64b/66b), the LAN-PHY and
> > WAN-PHY
> > have different denominations representing different 10GE PHYs (as per May
> > meeting)
> > resulting in 10 different PHYs LAN and WAN together!!
> >
> > What is UniPHY exactly?? What is it unifying anyway?
> >
> > Why are we forcing on the WAN-PHY a code that is bandwidth inefficient and
> > incompatible
> > with the SONET world?
> >
> > Kamran
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Roy Bynum wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > >
> > > Now I am confused. It was my understanding that the LAN only PHY would
> be using 64b/66b, just like what is being forced on the WAN
> > > compatible PHY. If so, then it was my understanding that the parallel/
> CWDM PMD would also be 64b/66b.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Rich Taborek" <rtaborek@earthlink.net>
> > > To: "HSSG" <stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org>
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 2:35 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PMD discussion
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > >
> > > > Done! I completely agree to drop this tangent and focus on PMD issues.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > NetWorthTK@aol.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rich:
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe you misunderstood my mail to conclude your comments too
> quickly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never mentioned that I like the 12.5 Gbps 8B/10B coding to be
> replaced by
> > > > > 10.3125 Gbps 64b/66b.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are discussing serial vs parallel issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are too much involved in resolving PMD issues right now, and I
> believe no
> > > > > one is interested in bring the coding scheme back to reflector at
> this moment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please do not intiate this one. let us focuse on PMD issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed Chang
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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
> >