Re: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters

[Sterling Vaden <sterlingv@bellsouth.net>]

Title:

OK, I'll bite,

I think it has been "shown" that for the purposes of the PAR and 5 critters, 10G will work over the following:

ISO Class F without ammendment.
ISO Class E (or Cat6) screened or SSTP (with extended limits to 500 or 625 MHz) extended limits TBD by ISO or TIA
(note that Class D and Class E screened (overall shield) and SSTP (individually shielded pairs) are commonly installed in Europe, so this is not a "fantasy cable". Screened cabling is also specified by TIA)
ISO Class E (or Cat6) UTP to 50 meters (with extended limits to 500 or 625 MHz) extended limits TBD by ISO or TIA

ISO Class D (Cat5e) Screened? Perhaps up to 80 meters, but this is grey area.
ISO Class D (Cat5e) UTP? Perhaps up to 40 meters,

For ISO Class D (Cat5e) there is a basic problem in that the cabling standards groups are unwilling to standardize (create limits) beyond 100 MHz, or expend further work on the cabling besides measure it. This poses a very real difficulty in specifying a protocol that relies upon performance beyond that specified by the cabling standard. (ask Geoff  Thompson) Cabling manufacturers may decide to forego warranting their cabling systems for such a protocol.

Also, for the time being, lets pretend that alien crosstalk field testing does not exist (it doesn't). Also lets pretend that alien crosstalk mitigation techniques (all, retrofit and new cable designs) for the moment do not exist. These are considerations for the task group.

Some may also contend that the protocol will run on longer lengths of Cat5e and Cat6 UTP. If so, that is fine, but it is a matter of dispute, and therefore cannot be considered. This is also a consideration for the task group.

At the Plenary, on the last day we heard the PHY vendors backpedaling on their previously stated opiniion that it would run on Class F. If that is the case, and they insist on this position, then the project is dead. Therefore I propose that there must be an agreement that the protocol will run on at least Class F cabling to 100 meters, or we need to start over. If we can agree on that, then we can move forward to consider the other cabling classes.

Sterling Vaden

Bruce Tolley wrote:

Brad:

Thanks for the follow up.

I am confident that if we can agree on crisp, clear objectives for 10 Gbps reach and media supported in September that we can get our PAR approved and move into Task Force mode, which is where the real work begins.

Bruce

At 06:35 PM 7/24/2003 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:

Study Group Members,

Just to let others that were not at the meeting know the outcome of the 802.3 Working Group meeting, the Study Group will have to complete its PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives in November.  This gives the Study Group the task of completing the PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives in 4 months.  This will make our September Interim meeting extremely important.  We will need to complete the effort as much as possible to pre-submit to the 802.3 Working Group prior to the November Plenary.  November will permit us the ability to modify the PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives prior to asking 802.3 to put the PAR on the NesCom agenda.  The September Interim meeting will focus on the completion of our PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives.

Thanks,
Brad

Chair, 10GBASE-T Study Group

Bruce Tolley

Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies

Gigabit Systems Business Unit

Cisco Systems

170 West Tasman Drive

MS SJ B2

San Jose, CA 95134-1706

internet: btolley@cisco.com

ip phone: 408-526-4534

"Don't put your hiking boots in the oven unless you plan on eating them."

Colin Fletcher, The Complete Walker