Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY




Roy,

What is this competition from Fibre Channel to Ethernet that you allude
to? I work/have worked on both GE and FC committees at 1G and 10G rates
and was involved at the very beginning of the 1GE effort in presenting
1GFC technology as the strawman for 1GE. This decision, the close
working relationships between the two standards committees, the sharing
of components between the two standards, the distinction of SAN/LAN
markets between the two are all EXTREMELY positive attributes. 

I for one, am NOT confused about what 802.3 wants to happen in the
market. 802.3 wants to grow Ethernet's dominance in the LAN and
expansion into other application spaces including the MAN, WAN. There
are efforts under way to utilize Ethernet in the SAN, and this will
provide Fibre Channel with competition in its dominant application
space. However, my belief is that there's a lot more to supporting
high-performance Storage Area Networks than a physical layer and that
sharing physical layers is a GOOD thing for standards to do. For exactly
the same reasons, it makes sense for P802.3ae to employ the same
physical layer for MAN and WAN Ethernet applications as for LAN
applications, rather than basing P802.3ae on an alien, complex and
prohibitively expensive physical layer (i.e. SONET).

Note that 10GFC SANs require MAN and WAN application support to the same
extent as 10GE LANs. Utilizing the same exact physical layer for both is
a WIN-WIN for 10GFC and 10GE, resulting in significantly reduced costs.
Do you really see 10GE and 10GFC being anything other than a win-win for
all involved parties including users, component suppliers, system
vendors, etc.

10GFC supports LSS for MAN and WAN OAM&P style management. P802.3ae can
leverage this relatively simple addition to its protocol at any time if
needed.

I'm not proposing any change to P802.3ae objectives. However, I don't
see how exactly the WAN PHY fits into the big 802.3 picture. I'm also
not proposing any limitation on WAN PHY market share. It should take
care of itself. Perhaps the WAN PHY go the way of T2 or T4.

Best Regards,
Rich
    
--

Roy Bynum wrote:
> 
> Bruce, Pat, Brad,
> 
> Everyone that wanted to could have participated in the WIS logic track when
> the question of the operational maintenance bytes were presented.  I am
> still irritated that I was not allowed to participate as a customer in the
> 10 GEA and present the rational for need for each of the bytes and make it
> part of the original "blue book" presentations that became Draft 1.0.   I
> have made general presentations concerning the need for what I believe to
> be the bytes in question.  It is taking a great amount of resources on my
> part to keep going over this issue again and again.
> 
> I am confused about what P802.3ae really wants to happen in the market
> place.  They have promoted the development of technology that will support
> competition from high bandwidth Fibre Channel and thus limit the market
> share for the LAN PHY.  Now they seem to want to also cripple the
> functionality of, and thus limit the market share of the WAN PHY.   What is
> happening here?  Does anyone think that limiting the market for the WAN PHY
> will increase the market for the LAN PHY?  If so, they are very wrong.  All
> that will be accomplished is to limit the ability of the 802.3 to maintain
> control of the Ethernet standard.  Other organizations are in the process
> of developing competing PHYs because 802.3 has not stepped up to what the
> market needs.  Even future development in such groups as EFM is now in
> jeopardy.   I know this because I am involved with those other groups as
> well.  I would rather see 802.3 maintain control of the standard, but that
> is up to 802.3.
> 
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> 
> At 04:23 PM 1/29/01 -0800, Bruce Tolley wrote:
> 
> >Pat:
> >
> >Yes precisely.
> >
> >Bruce
> >
> >At 05:15 PM 1/29/01 -0700, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
> >>Bruce,
> >>
> >>If someone wants a change as a result of this, it should be done in terms of
> >>one or more specific changes and not a general statement which they expect
> >>editor's to develop into a draft change.
> >>
> >>Pat
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@cisco.com]
> >>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:11 PM
> >>To: Booth, Bradley; HSSG
> >>Subject: RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Brad and Roy:
> >>
> >>I asked this question before and no one responded.  Is someone going to
> >>turn this email thread into a comment on the next draft?
> >>
> >>
> >>Bruce
> >>
> >>At 12:13 PM 1/28/01 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >>
> >> >Roy,
> >> >
> >> >Yes, by that reasoning, you could state that RF/LF is outside the scope of
> >> >the standard.  It is a matter of interpretation to each individual in the
> >> >room as to what is inside and outside the scope of the standard based upon
> >> >the objectives.  Everyone in the room could have a differing view of what
> >> >the WAN PHY is and what the required management is.  I believe that our
> >> >standard can only be stronger if we, as participants, are willing to
> >> >question everything about it.  If we can't justify it being in the
> >>standard,
> >> >then it probably doesn't belong.
> >> >
> >> >Cheers,
> >> >Brad
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@mindspring.com]
> >> >Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 4:03 PM
> >> >To: Booth, Bradley; HSSG
> >> >Subject: RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Brad,
> >> >
> >> >Just because the objective was vague doe not mean it was without
> >> >meaning.  By your reasoning, I could just as easily state that RL/LF
> >> >functionality is out of scope, as it was not included in the
> >> >objectives.  Just as the objective for a LAN PHY carried with it the
> >> >inferred lack of need for management overhead, the objective for the WAN
> >> >PHY carried with it the inferred need for management overhead.  Please
> >> >refer back to the all of the traffic on the reflector and to the
> >> >presentations concerning the management overhead requirements for a WAN
> >>PHY.
> >> >
> >> >Thank you,
> >> >Roy Bynum
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >At 09:53 PM 1/26/01 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >To quote the objectives:
> >> > >"Define two families of PHYs
> >> > >- A LAN PHY, operating at a data rate of 10.000 Gb/s
> >> > >- A WAN PHY, operating at a data rate compatible with the payload rate of
> >> > >OC-192c/SDH VC-4-64c"
> >> > >
> >> > >That's all the objective says.  By that objective, we could create a "WAN
> >> > >PHY" that that is just the 10GBASE-R PHY pushing data onto the fiber at
> >> > >9.58464 Gb/s, without any SONET overhead.  The objective was meant to be
> >> > >vague so that the task force had some flexibility.
> >> > >
> >> > >Cheers,
> >> > >Brad
> >> > >
> >> > >-----Original Message-----
> >> > >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@mindspring.com]
> >> > >Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 5:59 AM
> >> > >To: rtaborek@earthlink.net; HSSG
> >> > >Subject: Re: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Rich,
> >> > >
> >> > >You have a very good a presenting that would seem reasonable to those who
> >> > >don't have any experience in attempting to implement what you are
> >> > >proposing.  The objectives of P802ae include a WAN PHY.  What constitutes
> >>a
> >> > >WAN PHY has been explained to the group by those of us that have worked
> >>in
> >> > >a WAN optical environment.  You keep miss representing the requirements
> >>of
> >> > >a WAN PHY by presenting a LAN implementation as a WAN.  It works very
> >>well
> >> > >at confusing those that are attempting to gain an understanding of what
> >>the
> >> > >issues are.
> >> > >
> >> > >Those of us that have worked in the WAN optical environment are not
> >> > >confused by your comments.  Those of us that have worked in the WAN
> >>optical
> >> > >environment would like to have the opportunity to educate those that
> >>would
> >> > >actually like to gain a understanding of what the real world requirements
> >> > >are.
> >> > >
> >> > >Thank you,
> >> > >Roy Bynum
                                  
------------------------------------------------------- 
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