RE: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
I for one would be very interested in an XBI
discussion in La Jolla. Wednesday will work
for me. However, I strongly recommend limiting
the scope of the discussion to XBI issues,
and having a second meeting on SUPI. If we
mix the two we probably won't make any
From: Jscquake@aol.com [mailto:Jscquake@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 7:26 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
Henning, Stuart B, Stuart R, Joel, all,
Thanks for your varied responses. In light of this interesting discussion
which will probably not end here, is there any interest to have an informal
discussion among interested parties sometime (evening?) in La Jolla?
I would venture to go along the lines w/ what Henning wrote ... perhaps we
can focus on what things need/can be specified for 10GE from OIF. I would
also be curious if a 4-bit interface (SUPI) has any interest left among the
group. I can see how a 4-bit has advantages (power savings) but leaving it
out would still allow others to implement it.
Suggest Wed night. Any interest?
In a message dated 6/26/00 9:26:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
> Just as a counter point, we probably address a different market segment,
> all (but one) of our customers have chosen a 622 reference clock, instead
> the 155 option...
> David Huff
> Executive Director, Marketing
> Multilink Technology Corporation
> 300 Atrium Drive, Second Floor
> Somerset, NJ 08873
> ph: 732.537.3731
> fx: 732.805.9177
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com
> > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Lysdal, Henning
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 3:59 AM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: RE: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
> > Stuart, Justin, all
> > I appologize if my answer to the fairly simple question by Justin:
> > "Are there any that uses the 155MHz as a reference for OC192?"
> > has confused some.
> > My point was to show technical feasibility, so I'll give it a second
> > and see if we can get the discussion back on track:
> > Given the choice between a 155.52MHz reference clock and a 622.08 MHz
> > reference clock most of the transceiver vendors (SerDes
> > customers), I know,
> > CHOOSE 155.52MHz.
> > It might be easier to get good jitter performance with 622.08MHz
> > (644.53MHz), but it is also more expensive.
> > Maybe we should start discussing which parts of the OIF spec. should be
> > copied for Ethernet rather than going over the details of which
> > frequencies
> > goes where. I guess we can all agree, we need RXDATA, RX_CLK, TX_DATA
> > TX_CLK. What else do we need to specify?
> > Regards,
> > Henning