Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10MMF
Eric
The PAR and the five critters define the problem as a unique and distinct
serial small form factor solution for legacy MM fiber.
Bruce
At 01:00 PM 7/15/2004 -0700, Eric Grann wrote:
>All,
>
>If this 300m over installed FDDI fiber is the goal, why is the IEEE wasting
>time with an objective that doesn't address this. In fact, why is the IEEE
>wasting time on a PAR that duplicates a solution already ratified by the
>802.3ae standard (10GBase-LX4). If the reason is the potential lower cost,
>I would argue this point as well. Multiple (more than 5) vendors are now
>designing and delivering LX4 transceivers (both XENPAK and X2). In fact,
>our company is delivering LX4 TOSA and LX4 ROSA optics to the market at
>costs that will easily meet the volume cost targets of the transceiver
>manufacturer's and the system vendors. Additionally, demonstrations have
>been shown by at least 2 companies that are working on LX4 VCSEL based
>solutions.
>
> From the schedule, it appears the LRM standard won't be ratified until 2006.
>It appears the IEEE is wasting time on something that Might be lower cost
>several years away. What happened to the rule of "One problem, one
>solution" in the IEEE. Doesn't this violate that goal.
>
>Eric
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@CISCO.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:11 AM
>To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10MMF
>
>
>To all LRMers
>
>Sorry I could not make it to Portland. This is the last month of our fiscal
>year and I am called by a higher power to focus on near term goals :)).
>
>To echo Val's first point, we have been shipping -ER, -LR and -SR to
>customers for some many months now. The relevant experience for the 300
>meter goal is not comparisons to 1000BASE-SX at this point, but experience
>with deployment of the shipping port types and talking to customers about
>all the existing and potential 10GBASE- port types.
>
>Customers are communicating a VERY strong requirement for 300 meters on
>legacy and new MM fiber. To ignore this requirement is, at the very least,
>to neglect the broad market potential criterion. You may not agree with
>this requirement but I can tell you from personal experience it is the
>expectation today from the customers who want spend money on 10 Gb Ethernet.
>
>thanks
>
>Bruce
>
>At 11:13 PM 7/14/2004 -0700, Val Oliva wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >I want to be clear, as a system vendor, that the
> >following are clear customer requirements for this
> >standard:
> >
> >1. 10GMMF must support a maximum distance of 300m
> > (not 220m, which I hear from other optic vendors),
> > the maximum lenght for support of FDDI-grade fiber.
> >
> >2. Ability to support single mode fiber using the
> > same PHY or standard is critical as well.
> >
> >Please reply to voliva@foundrynet.com for further
> >questions about this requirement.
> >
> >Thank you. Val Oliva
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>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
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