Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10GMMF
Bruce,
You forgot to mention that this does not impede anyone from creating a dual
use PMD if they can do so competitively.
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Bruce
> Tolley
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 8:21 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10GMMF
>
>
> Val and all:
>
> To address the 2nd point Val made earlier in the thread in
> regard to SM
> fiber support.
>
> Just to clear, I still stand by the decision we made in the
> SG to support
> MM fiber only with the project. We started the discussions of
> the tradeoffs
> early on in the ad hoc which continued in the SG and all
> agreed that with
> the aim of a lower cost, simpler solution I we had to
> optimize the solution
> for MM fiber, both installed legacy MM fiber and the newer OM3 fiber.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> At 12:05 AM 7/16/2004 -0700, Val Oliva wrote:
> >Ahh another one of my biggest frustration and
> >customers (the end customer) are beginning to
> >see this issue.
> >
> >The issue - 10GbE has too many MSAs
> >
> >Albeit we know how to connect 10GbE together
> >regardless of MSAs, customers are confuse. In
> >addition, customers want only one MSA.
> >
> >Why? It's cost.
> >
> >For us system folks, the problem is cost as
> >well - what 10GbE boards do I need to build,
> >XENPAK, XFP, X2, ... it goes on and on.
> >Invest in the wrong board, wrong MSA, well,
> >we know what happens.
> >
> >Again, the requirements for 10GMMF are as
> >follows:
> >
> >1. Support a maximum distance of 300m.
> >
> >2. Support single mode fiber.
> >
> >
> >Val Oliva
> >
> >--- Eric Grann <ebgrann@ADUROINC.COM> 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 length 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> >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