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

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Harry Hvostov; fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
'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@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 27 September 2001 17:41
> > To: 'fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Denton Gentry';
> > bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 6:05 AM
> > To: 'Denton Gentry'; bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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