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

Re: [HSSG] MAC Data Rate of Operation Objective

I'd like to point out that the transport mechanisms to achieve a scalable interface that you mentioned might also be used for a fixed rate interface.  An additional attribute that the scalable approach likely needs to identify is the scaling granularity.  For example, "a scalable MAC data rate in increments of 10Gb/s".  

We need not get into the particular means of transporting these incremental channels in the objectives.  

Paul Kolesar
CommScope Enterprise® Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone:  972.792.3155
Fax:      972.792.3111
eMail:   pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

John DAmbrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

08/14/2006 04:20 PM
Please respond to
John DAmbrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

[HSSG] MAC Data Rate of Operation Objective

In regards to proposed MAC data rates, I have seen two basic proposals
Proposal A) 100 Gb/s
Proposal B) Scalable Solution
Proposal A supports the traditional 10x increase in speed.  
Proposal B, as presently discussed, is unbounded.  (The following are only my observations of statements made on the reflector by others)  The lowest limit proposed was a 4x10 approach for 40 Gb/s.  No upper limits have been proposed.  It has been suggested that this approach should use existing PMDs, but there have been also been comments regarding use of 10G, 25G, and 40G lambdas, but that carriers would want to leverage their existing DWDM layer, which mean baudrate in the 9.95-12.5 Gig.  Consuming wavelengths has been brought up as a possible concern.  It was also suggested that the greatest bandwidth demands are on VSR links < 50m and that the longer reach (>10km) may be able to live with 4x10G.  (Data in support of these observations that could be used to guide the creation of objectives would be welcome.)
An objective for Proposal A could be similar to what was done for 10 GbE– Support a speed of 100.000 Gb/s at the MAC/PLS service interface.
For Proposal B, given its current unbounded nature and multiple discussion points, I am not sure what would be proposed.  I am looking to the advocates of this proposal to provide some verbiage to the reflector for discussion.  Using the objective above as a basis: Support a speed greater than 10.000 Gb/s at the MAC/PLS service interface, would create too broad an objective.
Also for both proposals what are people’s thoughts on an objective that would specify an optional Media Independent Interface (MII)?