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

Re: [EFM] RE: 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps


I have a different perspective based on conversations with SPs and network 

My sense of market opportunity is that there is interest in 1000BASE-X as 
the transport technology. What SPs want is to deliver bandwidth in slices 
at the edge to business customers and even to residential subscribers

They also want OAM and based on conversations I have had, there is interest 
in a side band even if it means giving up some bandwidth.

Bruce Tolley
Cisco Systems

At 09:21 PM 9/26/01 +0100, Bob Barrett wrote:

>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