RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
Andrew
Good answer, I had been waiting for that one, however, would all the power
users accept this?
And I guess the answer is yes, if it's sold correctly. That's a marketing
issue.
Speaking as a non-service provider I can anticipate the service provider
retort .... (with apologies to Roy).
OK so I offer 999M and that other xLEC is offering 1G to 'my customer' for
less money.
Well, Mr Customer, do you want 999M guaranteed from a service provider with
a track record, or 1GE from some start-up that may go the way of the DLECs?
(Apologies to any one that used to work for a DLEC that's now in chapter
11.)
Although this may seem non-technical it is probably one of the key issues
regarding the side band / in band debate.
The business case for the products resulting from the standards effort needs
to work, else we go the way of the even numbered work groups. Personally I
still think some basic OAM functions for the PHY need to be side band, but I
have described the thought processes behind that philosophy in other emails.
The interfaces for 999M EFM should be an order of magnitude (if not two
orders of magnitude) lower cost than 622M Sonet/SDH interfaces. The core
functions of the routers and switch gear will probably cost the same, its
the interfaces and protocol conversions where the savings will be. The
management and resilience of EFM needs to be comparable to Sonet/SDH to
complete the business case, but that's a vendor specific thing.
Thank you
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Andrew
> Smith
> Sent: 28 September 2001 03:21
> To: Roy Bynum
> Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm'
> Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
>
>
>
> Roy,
>
> I'd be interested to see how you propose measuring one of your
> 802.3x-pause-rate-limited services against one of these "certification"
> testers. But seriously, folks, to paraphrase that doctor-patient story
> "Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I sell my customers 1000000000.0000 bps
> service. Doctor: then don't sell them that, sell them what you can
> guarantee".
>
> Andrew Smith
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roy Bynum
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 4:36 PM
> To: bob.barrett@fourthtrack.com; Harry Hvostov; fmenard@ims-experts.com;
> 'Denton Gentry'
> Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm'
> Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
> You would be surprised at how little bandwidth loss it takes for equipment
> to fail certification in a services infrastructure deployment approval
> process. If we tell our customers that we are delivering a GbE, then we
> deliver a GbE that will pass their most rigorous performance test,
> including throughput.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 12:11 AM 9/28/01 +0100, Bob Barrett wrote:
>
> >Harry et al
> >
> >yup, all the IP 'stuff' is payload as far as the demarcation point is
> >concerned.
> >
> >The demarc is a PHY that carries packets at the end of the day. Some
> demarcs
> >may be buried inside a bigger system, however, the standard must
> also cater
> >for stand alone demarc devices. My expectation as a user would be that at
> >the demarc the bandwidth was the same capacity as my enterprise
> MAC and PHY
> >of the same spec.
> >
> >Would I miss 10k per second on a 1GE, I doubt it.
> >
> >Would my test gear pick it up on an end to end private circuit test, I
> don't
> >know, anyone on the reflector tried this?
> >
> >Bob
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Harry Hvostov [mailto:HHvostov@luminous.com]
> > > Sent: 27 September 2001 17:41
> > > To: 'fmenard@ims-experts.com'; 'Denton Gentry';
> > > bob.barrett@fourthtrack.com
> > > Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm'
> > > Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
> > >
> > >
> > > And how about the ICMP and IGMP traffic from the same CPE devices?
> > >
> > > Harry
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Francois Menard [mailto:fmenard@ims-experts.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 6:05 AM
> > > To: 'Denton Gentry'; bob.barrett@fourthtrack.com
> > > Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm'
> > > Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Or for that matter, what about ARP traffic unsolicited from my CPE
> > > devices ?
> > >
> > > -=Francois=-
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Denton
> > > Gentry
> > > Sent: September 26, 2001 3:12 PM
> > > To: bob.barrett@fourthtrack.com
> > > Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> > > Subject: [EFM] 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
>