Re: XAUI, SFF connectors
Hi Roy
> X-Sender: rabynum@pop.mindspring.com
> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:26:27 -0500
> To: ghiasi <Ali.Ghiasi@eng.sun.com>
> From: Roy Bynum <rabynum@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: XAUI, SFF connectors
> Mime-Version: 1.0
>
> Ali,
>
> I agree, it should be possible to put more than one 10GbE port on a PCI
> form factor. I agree, XAUI is a good technology to get from the backplane
> to the ASIC.
How do you expect 10Gig Ethernet data is getting from ASIC through
backplane and to the I/O?
>What I object to is hijacking the Ethernet standard to
> develop technology that is not for Ethernet, but for generic system vendors
> using Infeneband and Fibre Channel.
Gigabit Ethernet physical layer was based on Fiber Channel, it is called
leveraging or cost amortization. Also Infeneband is written as "Infiniband".
>If possible, I am going to make the
> XAUI people pay for their pushing the cost of that technology development
> into the P802.3ae standard.
Since we are going to save you some buck, I hope you don't mind instead
you paying us.
Thanks,
Ali Ghiasi
Sun Microsystems
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 10:33 AM 7/24/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hi Roy
> >
> > > X-Sender: rabynum@pop.mindspring.com
> > > Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:23:15 -0500
> > > To: rtaborek@earthlink.net, HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org>
> > > From: Roy Bynum <rabynum@mindspring.com>
> > > Subject: Re: XAUI, SFF connectors
> > > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <stds-802-3-hssg@majordomo.ieee.org>
> > > X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
> > > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
> > >
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > >
> > > What need does an interface card have for SFF connectors that can only put
> > > one optical port within a 13 inch copper etch radius?
> >
> >It should be very reasonable to put two to four 10 Gig port on a PCI form
> >factor card.
> >
> > From what you and
> > > others are making us believe, the form factor requirements for 10GbE
> > are so
> > > large that SFF connectors are a non-issue. If 10GbE interfaces are going
> > > to be so dense that we will need SFF connectors, why did we need XAUI? I
> > > can't see how you would need both.
> >
> >XAUI provides high through put 3.125 Gb/s from two ASIC pin (+ few extra)
> >with very flexible interconnect, while keeping the package pin count
> >reasonable. XAUI is the high bandwidth pipe to get data to and from
> >your big ASIC.
> >
> >The other reason for XAUI was to define an interface for the backplane
> >and ASIC so they can be developed, while everyone is arguing on the
> >right PMD for 10 gig.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Ali Ghiasi
> >Sun Microsystems
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
> > > At 10:13 PM 7/23/00 -0700, Rich Taborek wrote:
> > >
> > > >Roy,
> > > >
> > > >As is usually the case, you always bring up interesting tangential
> > > >issues in your email. This time it's:
> > > >
> > > >"Given the form factor that would use XAUI, SFF connectors would not be
> > > >a requirement."
> > > >
> > > >What in the world does the XAUI interface, specified for use as an XGMII
> > > >extender, have to do with SFF connectors???
> > > >
> > > >Please enlighten me.
> > > >
> > > >Best Regards,
> > > >Rich
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >
> > > >Roy Bynum wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure of your comment about LC having a proven track record
for
> > > > > single mode implementations. At present, WorldCom has not deployed
any
> > > > > LC. All of the connectors currently specified for SM installations is
> > > > > SC. A particular vendor is attempting to get WorldCom to make use of
> >their
> > > > > connectors. ( I will not say how successful or not they are.
> > ) Several
> > > > > system vendors are attempting to make use of LC, but at present,
> > none have
> > > > > been certified. Given the form factor that would use XAUI, SFF
> > connectors
> > > > > would not be a requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > Roy Bynum
> > > > >
> > > > > At 04:28 PM 7/21/00 -0600, Chris Simoneaux wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Our opinion is that LC is a better connector than MTRJ. The LC
> > does not
> > > > > >seem to suffer the possible damage that MTRJ can see with high
> >mate/demate
> > > > > >cycles...due to the guide pin action. Also, the LC has a proven
track
> > > > > >record for singlemode whereas the MTRJ does not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >PS: My feeling is the standards body's charter should be to specify a
> > > > > >connector. However, there's too much rhetoric in the procedure.
> > Therefore
> > > > > >it's difficult to choose the best solution. Inevitably the real
> > winner/s
> > > > > >will come forward. Conclusion: Choose a connector at the standards
> > > > level as
> > > > > >it can expose good points of each solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Chris Simoneaux
> > > > > >Picolight
> > > >
> > > >-------------------------------------------------------
> > > >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
> > >
>