Point to Point Ethernet
msaqib at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 02:03:04 CDT 2009
For the sake of my knowledge (and perhaps that of some others on the list),
I would like to ask if the current work on standards by IETF, ITU and IEEE
not a step to address the issue of seamlessly using Ethernet in the
IETF is working on GMPLS Ethernet Label Switching (GELS), which proposes to
replace the Ethernet control plane (MAC learning, spanning tree etc) by the
GMPLS control plane. This would provide explicitly routed Ethernet LSPs. ITU
seems to be working on Transport MPLS (T-MPLS), and IEEE seems to be at work
on the Provider Backbone Bridge (PBB) standard.
Granted the difficulties and faults with the standardization process, my
question is more concerned with the technical nature.
Thanks and best regards
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb at byrneit.net> wrote:
> Overhead shmoverhead.
> Seriously, we're fighting over the non-issue. It's not the "wasted"
> 0.02% of bandwidth (@ 1Gbps) that's the issue. It's the utility of a
> "come as you are" "plug and play" network that "Ethernet" (which really
> loosely means all IEEE 802 protocols) provides, which the current
> carrier networks do not.
> If I read the thread correctly, what you really are asking for is the
> ability to plug your IEEE compliant gig/10gig switch into a carrier port
> and just have it ARP and respond for valid IP addresses on the segment,
> as opposed to all the back and forth provisioning, truck rolls, and
> interaction with bell-head union workers that the current system
> Now, HOW to accomplish that is an interesting discussion, and the first
> valid result will probably be a great business.
> That doesn't require breaking Ethernet, using promiscuous mode, or much
> except the carriers stopping trying to throw their legacy
> circuit-switched requirements onto a packet switched network.
> There's plenty of fiber in the ground. Light dark stuff with the new
> network, plug it into IEEE 802* compliant layer 2, and IETF compliant
> layer 3 infrastructure; and leave the dying Bellcore/ITU network on the
> old copper and SONET.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: sthaug at nethelp.no [mailto:sthaug at nethelp.no]
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:34 PM
> >To: tkapela at gmail.com
> >Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> >Subject: Re: Point to Point Ethernet
> >> Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on
> >As far as I know Gig and 10 Gig (with LAN PHY) are exactly the same
> >as 10 and 100 Mbps in this respect, i.e. 8 bytes of preamble and 12
> >bytes of IFG. So you always have an overhead of 20 bytes, no matter
> >10 Gig with WAN PHY is a whole different ballgame, of course.
> >Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no
Muhammad Saqib Ilyas
PhD Student, Computer Science and Engineering
Lahore University of Management Sciences
More information about the NANOG