RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
Vadimir,
I am just an ignorant customer. When I go to a computer store and buy a
"hub", what I get is 802.1d bridge that has half duplex Ethernet ports. I
have an old "hub" that I got from a just such a store. The box claims
802.1d bridge support. Perhaps I am guilty of using the vernacular
meanings of some terms. But then, I am just a customer.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 10:51 PM 9/27/01 -0400, Vladimir Senkov wrote:
>Absolutely agree.
>I didn't want to repeat myself (here and was trying to do that via
>personal e-mails), but i guess I just have to say that those who test they:
>
>1) Test equipment vs. technology
>2) Know what they are testing and what they are expecting as a result
>Those who sell testing equipment:
>1) Also sell methodologies, training and certification.
>2) Some of those methodologies are in the RFCs. There are other standards
>for that as well.
>Those who sell equipment:
>1) Tell customers exactly what they are selling
>2) No matter how much they want otherwise, they are going to sell the EFM,
>but not the "pure 1G story"
>EFM needs to address specific needs of those who are going to buy it.
>Those needs may include: delivering data, video, voice, whatever . . . to
>whatever distance, concentration of users, etc. Those needs may include:
>security, pricing, etc, etc.
>
>but not just "1G". "1G" is not a need. it is more like a sign on a freeway
>or something . . .
>let's say "upto 1G". even with OAM in-band, it will still be "upto 1G".
>
>I'll also repeat that Ethernet performance (to the end user anyway) is NOT
>measured in bits per second. And nobody is selling 10Mbps repeaters/hubs
>(yes hub IS a repeater :) for example. They sell Ethernet hubs instead.
>
>Therefore, customer who buys such a hub knows that he is not going to sue
>the seller for not delivering 10Mbps. Customer will only expect
>performance characteristics of that device to be tested against Ethernet
>performance measurement methodologies.
>
>Regards,
>Vladimir.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Smith [<mailto:ah_smith@xxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:ah_smith@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 10:21 PM
>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>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>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>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>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