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

[Buhrmaster, Gary]

The IEEE is a consensus organization.  The 
existing DWDM vendors wanted to see "10Gb"
fit with their existing optic equipment (and 
preserve their existing investments).  The
other group wanted full "10Gb".  Since, in
the end, neither side could be convinced,
the IEEE specified both as options, and
would let the market decide.  The interfaces
fully support both.  Any type of XENPAK (LAN 
or WAN PHY) *should* be able to work in any
compliant piece of equipment (let us, for
the moment, ignore certain vendors that
validate EEPROM id's rather than accepting
that the whole point of a MSA is that
anything is supposed to work in anything
else and let the market determine the
pricing of commodity optics).  So,
standards are wonderful things, but
just like sausages, it is not always a
pretty thing to watch being made.

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
> lists at hojmark.org
> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 3:55 AM
> To: 'Mikael Abrahamsson'
> Cc: 'Simon Leinen'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Does 6500 10 GigE currently support WAN-PHY?
> 
> > WAN PHY is OC192 framed, can thus be carried over legacy OC192
> > DWDM infrastructure (DWDM only, not SONET due to clocking being
> > less than SONET grade accuracy).
> > 
> > So if your DWDM system doesn't have 10GE LAN PHY capability
> > (10.3 GHz 64b/66b coding) then WAN PHY with its OC192
> > compatible coding (9.5GHz) is very interesting.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 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?
> 
> -A
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>