[c-nsp] Does 6500 10 GigE currently support WAN-PHY?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 lists at hojmark.org wrote:

> Do you (or anyone else) know why IEEE didn't just settle on the OC192 
> coding, then? Because it's tiny bit slower (9,95 vs 10.31)? Or is it 
> maybe more expensive to do because of the WAN sublayer?

You mean why there is LAN PHY at all?

I don't know, but because it might be cheaper to do 64b/66b than OC192 
framing would be my guess. Now that the ASICs are in place the actual cost 
is not a big difference I've been told, even though the vendors will 
charge a lot more due to much lower volume (and because they can).

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se