| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Jonathan, While I understand the desire to find a
launching point for the discussion, this poll is approaching the problem in the
wrong order because we need to know what the single-mode objective is first. A purpose of the Study Group is to set
objectives that will allow us to establish cost-optimized 100GE. One
cannot logically pick cost-optimized MM objectives without first having framework
around the SM optics that will be used to address channels with lengths that
exceed the MM reach. At this point, we have not even established if we
will have a SM objective. In other words, we don’t know if the existing
LR4 will remain the only one, or if there will be another one added. Only
when the SM situation is established can we know the minimum capability that a
new MM optic must fulfill to optimize cost. I suggest that we first conduct such a
poll for SM and use it to start the objective discussion in the SM ad-hoc.
If that produces solid results, then undertake the same endeavor for MM. Regards, Paul From: Jonathan King [mailto:jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx] Dear all, On the Feb 14th MMF ad hoc call , it
seemed like we were beginning to converge on a possible objective for MMF
. In the next meeting (Tuesday 28th
Feb), I’d like to see if we can finalize a strawman MMF objective.
To that end I’ll prepare a presentation which we can review
during the call which will include a strawman objective for review on the
call, together with an overview of how it addresses the 5 criteria – to
help get the best starting point for that discussion I’d like to get your
responses to the questions below questions: The strawman objective will follow the
wording in Anslow_01_0111 Define a 4-lane 100
Gb/s PHY for operation over OMX MMF with lengths up to at least Y m 1) A reasonable MMF reach objective (i.e. the value of Y)
would be a.
100m b.
Significantly less than 100m (what reach?) c.
Significantly more than 100m (what reach ?) d.
decided in the task force 2) The MMF type should be a.
decided in the task force b.
OM3 c.
OM4 d.
at least as good as OM4 Please send your responses to me
directly at: jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx I will collate and report the results
but will not reveal any individual’s responses. If you feel uncomfortable expressing an
opinion, say so and I’ll note that. To repeat, this is not a formal
poll or vote, just intended to give us the best starting point for discussion
on Tuesday. Please send your responses as soon as
possible, and at least by close of business on Monday 27th Feb, 2012 Many thanks ! Jonathan King MMF ad hoc chair, Next Gen 100G Optics From: Hi, Following on from the meetings on 14
February, Jonathan and I are planning to hold an SMF Ad Hoc meeting immediately
followed by an MMF Ad Hoc meeting (1 hour each) starting at 8:00 am Pacific on
Tuesday 28 February. If you would like to present a contribution
at the SMF ad hoc, please send it to me and for the MMF ad hoc, send it to
Jonathan. Peter Anslow from Ciena has invited
you to join a meeting on the Web, using WebEx. Please join the meeting 5-10
minutes early so we may begin on time. +44-203-4333547 ( 4438636577
( Conference Code: 207 012 5535 France, Paris :
0170375518 Hong Kong, Regards, Pete
Anslow | Senior Standards Advisor |