RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
I think that the problem relates to (3) in your mail: If a system with a WAN
PHY does not look reasonable, or does not have technical/economical
justification, then its market may be very low or non exist.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Thatcher
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 3:43 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
> 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
> 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).
> 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
> 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
> What am I missing?