Re: WISardry
Tom,
Thanks for your comments.
At 17:13 00/06/07 -0700, Tom Alexander wrote:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02624.html
> I do have two comments, however:
> - manual configuration is error-prone, especially as I don't see any
> way of telling whether the wrong port has been configured
> until I see packet loss at high rates in the ELTE
> - I can't see a whole lot of conceptual difference between LSS-based
> autoconfig and traditional autonegotiation with parallel
> detection (but hey, I'm not complaining!).
I agree with you that manual configuration should not be recommended.
I hope this is also true for the local Attachment Unit implementation.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02588.html
As for the autocofig v.s. autonegotiation, I see the following
difference from the view point of interoperability.
In the traditional autonegotiation, we need handshake between
Local PHY and its Link Partner. It requires mode selection based
on the information feedback over the link and hence we may have
some timing issues. I think this is the critical point of
interoperability.
In the autoconfig, on the contrary, we won't have any handshake.
It is one way information flow; there is no room for NEGOTIATION.
Just follow the Link Partner's instruction for his acceptable MAC
rate. We will have no timing issue. We will see no difficulties
in interoperability.
Best Regards,
Osamu
-----------------------------------------
Osamu ISHIDA
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
TEL +81-468-59-3263 FAX +81-468-55-1282