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

[EFM] RE: 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps


The smart alec cop-out answer is 'not at all because that is part of the 1GE
standard'. The honest answer is that I wasn't aware of the PAUSE function,
as I am not that close to 1GE MACs. What we do with 1GE is all at the PHY.

I guess you could say that the same explanation will apply if the OAM
in-band becomes part of the standard.

But that was not the only point in my email.

Don't get me wrong, I will support in-band OAM if it can be shown to be
immune from faults or attacks originating on the users network or equipment.
Convincing my customers may be harder, but I can always design in a
proprietary side-band option on the same platform. And I will take the view
of the service providers as to what they will accept as immune. Me, I'm an
equipment producer.

Best regards


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denton Gentry [mailto:denny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 26 September 2001 20:12
> To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> Subject: 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
> > Service providers have a desire to offer a full 1GE service and
> not use any
> > of it's bandwidth for OAM. The rule of conservation of
> bandwidth means the
> > OAM needs to go somewhere other then in the bandwidth reserved
> for the 1GE
> > payload. I take it as read that 100% utilisation of a 1GE is
> unlikely, but
> > that is not the point. The point is that service providers want
> to offer 1GE
> > service period, not a 999.9Mbit service.
>   Does the existence of the Mac Control PAUSE frame therefore make
> Ethernet unsuitable for service providers?
> Denton Gentry
> Dominet Systems