Re: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
Jonathan,
Just to acknowledge, you're not missing a thing :-)
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>
> I enter here with great trepidation. I would like to offer a couple of
> thoughts, based on our current draft (I am intentionally calling this by
> number) and what I remember reading on the reflector.
>
> 1. A 20 ppm clock or any other ppm less than or equal to 100 ppm would be
> compliant with the standard and would interoperate with all compliant
> hardware.
>
> 2. I do not remember seeing any data regarding the cost ratio offered
> between a 20 ppm clock and a 100 ppm clock. ($$ not allowed in comparison).
>
> 3. I do not remember seeing any data regarding the volume ratio of WAN to
> LAN PHYs expected in the market place.
>
> 4. I do not remember seeing any data regarding the cost ratio of an ELTE
> that has to support input of 100 ppm clock rates as compared to one that has
> to support 20 ppm (or other).
>
> 5. Based on 2, 3, 4, I cannot therefore make even the simplest calculation
> regarding a global optimization.
>
> 6. Based on 1, and 5, I don't see anything broken and I see no supporting
> evidence that a change is beneficial (or, would provide incentive for 75% of
> the voters to change this specification).
>
> Also,
>
> A. I don't see any reason why a LAN PHY can't source data at the OC-192 rate
> and still be considered compliant to the standard and fully interoperable
> with other LAN PHYs.
>
> B. From an implementation standpoint, it is quite reasonable to think of
> building an ELTE with the defined WIS and use a LAN PHY as the connection
> between the Ethernet equipment and the ELTE running the mode specified above
> in A.
>
> C. The equipment ELTE built in B could easily translate between the two
> clock domains (100 ppm and anything less than 100 ppm).
>
> D. All that I describe above, I believe, would be compliant to the proposed
> IEEE 802.3ae draft standard.
>
> Therefore, what is the problem? It seems to me that any of you can implement
> whatever you want and still be okay. I don't think that I am hearing issue
> with our draft. I think that I am hearing implementation questions/issues.
> What am I missing?
>
> jonathan
--
Best Regards,
Rich
-------------------------------------------------------
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