Re: XAUI, SFF connectors
Bruce,
At the risk of putting words in your mouth, I suspect you meant to say that
"defined interfaces" would DECREASE time to market, not INCREASE it.
Normally I might not point this out, but given the high level of excitement
associated with the debate on this specific issue it's probably worth killing
the opprotunity for someone to quote you out-of-context a few months hence. :-)
RR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tolley" <btolley@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Roy Bynum" <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: XAUI, SFF connectors
>
> Roy:
>
> I do not see what all the commotion is about.
>
> It seems that we learned during the IEEE 802.3z effort that there was a
> need to define additional electrical interfaces that had hitherto been
> outside the scope of 802.3. We also learned how to leverage expertise
> (people) , products, and technology from the ANSI and FC industry.
>
> While folks on the reflector and in the HSSG and TF have had legitimate
> technical criticisms of various aspects and incarnations of HARI, to define
> such a standard interface within 802.3ae. just seems good business sense
> that serves everyone in the value chain from chipset vendors, to systems
> vendors, to customers Such defined interfaces lower everyone's costs,
> increase time to market, lower barriers to entry. With competition and with
> Ethernet, there is always competition, customers win too.
>
> Yours
>
> Bruce
>
> At 04:54 PM 7/27/00 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> >Ali,
> >
> >You may have it backwards. XAUI is not presented as a back plane
> >technology. XAUI is presented as a copper etch extension contained only
> >on the PCB.
> >
> >The people that would be benefiting from the technology sharing is Fibre
> >Channel and Infiniband. At present, those groups do not have any mature
> >technology at 10Gb. Have you not noticed the reflector traffic
> >discussing how this technology should be developed. If Fibre Channel and
> >Infiniband had demonstrated 10Gb parallel interfaces already, then it
> >would be a different situation. The original presentations on "Hari" and
> >then "XAUI" would have been very different; they would have referenced
> >previous implementations. If it were mature technology from the other
> >environments, then the questions of "striping" and "jitter" would have
> >been answered already and not be topics of discussion here. The fact that
> >these are topics of discussion is another proof that it is P802.3ae that
> >is paying for this and the other technologies are the actual beneficiaries.
> >
> >It will be P802.3ae that will be paying for the technology development and
> >go through the "growing pains" to mature the technology. As a customer,
> >I find paying for the development of a technology specific for other
> >markets to be difficult to accept in order to get the technology that I do
> >want and am willing to pay for. I also find it uncomfortable and insecure
> >to attempt to depend on a technology that does not have a development and
> >maturation history.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum
> >
> >At 09:03 AM 7/26/00 -0700, ghiasi wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Roy
> >>
> >> > X-Sender: rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:26:27 -0500
> >> > To: ghiasi <Ali.Ghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > From: Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Subject: Re: XAUI, SFF connectors
> >> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> >> >
> >> > Ali,
> >> >
> >> > I agree, it should be possible to put more than one 10GbE port on a PCI
> >> > form factor. I agree, XAUI is a good technology to get from the backplane
> >> > to the ASIC.
> >>
> >>How do you expect 10Gig Ethernet data is getting from ASIC through
> >>backplane and to the I/O?
> >>
> >> >What I object to is hijacking the Ethernet standard to
> >> > develop technology that is not for Ethernet, but for generic system
> >> vendors
> >> > using Infeneband and Fibre Channel.
> >>
> >>Gigabit Ethernet physical layer was based on Fiber Channel, it is called
> >>leveraging or cost amortization. Also Infeneband is written as "Infiniband".
> >>
> >> >If possible, I am going to make the
> >> > XAUI people pay for their pushing the cost of that technology development
> >> > into the P802.3ae standard.
> >>
> >>Since we are going to save you some buck, I hope you don't mind instead
> >>you paying us.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>
> >>Ali Ghiasi
> >>Sun Microsystems
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thank you,
> >> > Roy Bynum
> >> >
> >> > At 10:33 AM 7/24/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >> > >Hi Roy
> >> > >
> >> > > > X-Sender: rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:23:15 -0500
> >> > > > To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > From: Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > Subject: Re: XAUI, SFF connectors
> >> > > > Mime-Version: 1.0
> >> > > > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
> >> > > > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Rich,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What need does an interface card have for SFF connectors that can
> >> only put
> >> > > > one optical port within a 13 inch copper etch radius?
> >> > >
> >> > >It should be very reasonable to put two to four 10 Gig port on a PCI form
> >> > >factor card.
> >> > >
> >> > > From what you and
> >> > > > others are making us believe, the form factor requirements for 10GbE
> >> > > are so
> >> > > > large that SFF connectors are a non-issue. If 10GbE interfaces
> >> are going
> >> > > > to be so dense that we will need SFF connectors, why did we need
> >> XAUI? I
> >> > > > can't see how you would need both.
> >> > >
> >> > >XAUI provides high through put 3.125 Gb/s from two ASIC pin (+ few extra)
> >> > >with very flexible interconnect, while keeping the package pin count
> >> > >reasonable. XAUI is the high bandwidth pipe to get data to and from
> >> > >your big ASIC.
> >> > >
> >> > >The other reason for XAUI was to define an interface for the backplane
> >> > >and ASIC so they can be developed, while everyone is arguing on the
> >> > >right PMD for 10 gig.
> >> > >
> >> > >Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > >Ali Ghiasi
> >> > >Sun Microsystems
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thank you,
> >> > > > Roy Bynum
> >> > > >
> >> > > > At 10:13 PM 7/23/00 -0700, Rich Taborek wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >Roy,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >As is usually the case, you always bring up interesting tangential
> >> > > > >issues in your email. This time it's:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >"Given the form factor that would use XAUI, SFF connectors would
> >> not be
> >> > > > >a requirement."
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >What in the world does the XAUI interface, specified for use as
> >> an XGMII
> >> > > > >extender, have to do with SFF connectors???
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Please enlighten me.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Best Regards,
> >> > > > >Rich
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >--
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Roy Bynum wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Chris,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I am not sure of your comment about LC having a proven track
> >> record
> >>for
> >> > > > > > single mode implementations. At present, WorldCom has not
> >> deployed
> >>any
> >> > > > > > LC. All of the connectors currently specified for SM
> >> installations is
> >> > > > > > SC. A particular vendor is attempting to get WorldCom to make
> >> use of
> >> > >their
> >> > > > > > connectors. ( I will not say how successful or not they are.
> >> > > ) Several
> >> > > > > > system vendors are attempting to make use of LC, but at present,
> >> > > none have
> >> > > > > > been certified. Given the form factor that would use XAUI, SFF
> >> > > connectors
> >> > > > > > would not be a requirement.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you,
> >> > > > > > Roy Bynum
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > At 04:28 PM 7/21/00 -0600, Chris Simoneaux wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >Our opinion is that LC is a better connector than MTRJ. The LC
> >> > > does not
> >> > > > > > >seem to suffer the possible damage that MTRJ can see with high
> >> > >mate/demate
> >> > > > > > >cycles...due to the guide pin action. Also, the LC has a proven
> >>track
> >> > > > > > >record for singlemode whereas the MTRJ does not.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >PS: My feeling is the standards body's charter should be to
> >> specify a
> >> > > > > > >connector. However, there's too much rhetoric in the procedure.
> >> > > Therefore
> >> > > > > > >it's difficult to choose the best solution. Inevitably the real
> >> > > winner/s
> >> > > > > > >will come forward. Conclusion: Choose a connector at the
> >> standards
> >> > > > > level as
> >> > > > > > >it can expose good points of each solution.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >Chris Simoneaux
> >> > > > > > >Picolight
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >-------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > >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@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > >Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >
>