Re: [10GMMF] Customer Issues with LRM
Thank you for clarifying the item, and I'm
apologetic about my comment below.
For me, there is no alternative than to go with
item #2.
What bothers me about this is that other vendors
tell me that they can do item #1 (with EDC) and
still meet the requirement (300m for 62.5). I can't
tell you the vendor's name, but we certainly will
focus on acquiring a solution from a vendor even if
it means using a proprietary solution (not an LRM
standard).
My commitment to my customer (the folks that will
buy and use this optic) is very high. I never
compromise with my customer's requirements (because
I don't have the liberty to compromise with buying
customers).
Please don't get me wrong, I need a "standard"
solution, but if push comes to shove, then I will
focus on meeting my customer's requirement.
Val Oliva
--- Bottacchi.external@INFINEON.COM wrote:
> Hi Val,
> I agree on this high-end message and I understand Bruce request
> too, but
> we should split the problem into two different options:
> 1 - Do we need to support EDC as the valid solution for
> overcoming
> MMF dispersion penalties? If "YES", we should agree (see reply from
> Petar Papeljugosky) that 220m represents the actual state of the
> art
> reach, unless we will use selected multimode fibers.
> 2 - Do we need to reach anywise 300m as per Bruce (Cisco)
> request?
> If "YES", we should find a different technology other then EDC for
> a
> today solution.
>
> The choice is up to the 10GBASE-LRM committee for the moment.
> Regarding
> some potential vendors meeting Bruce request today with valuable
> field-proved products, I am quite skeptic about.
>
> Best regards
>
> Stefano
>
> Dr. Ing. Stefano Bottacchi
> Senior Technical Consultant
> Concept Engineering
> Infineon Technologies Fiber Optics GmbH
> Wernerwerkdamm 16, 13623 Berlin
> Phone +49 (0)30 85400 1930
> Mobile: +49 (0)160 8 81 20 94
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Val Oliva
> Sent: Mittwoch, 10. November 2004 18:43
> To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Customer Issues with LRM
>
>
> All,
>
> I just got back from PR briefings in Europe and now
> finally got a chance to read Bruce's requests.
>
> It's important to heed Bruce's requests and as one
> of your potential customer as well, it's critical
> that LRM must support 300m for 62.5 and 50 micron
> (aka, existing FDDI-grade fiber).
>
> Not supporting these requirements (Bruce's request),
> means saying good-bye to a large portion of the
> market. Of course, it also means that those vendors
> that meet Bruce's requirements have more
> opportunities than those that don't.
>
>
> Val Oliva
> Product Line Manager for Edge and NMS Products
> Foundry Networks, Inc.
>
>
> --- Bruce Tolley <btolley@CISCO.COM> wrote:
>
> > >Dear Colleagues:
> >
> > My job has changed a bit at Cisco and now I am focused more on
> booking
> > revenues on a daily and monthly basis so I doubt I shall be able
> to
> > attend
> > the Plenary.
> >
> > I would like to sum up my perspective on customer requirements
> for LRM
>
> > for the project to consider if we really hope to deliver a
> successful
> > technology to the market. The data is based on 1) I am a customer
> > and 2)
> > interaction with my customers.
> >
> > Distance
> > The clear requirement is for LRM to reach 300 meters. Anything
> less at
>
> > this point is a non starter. The bar is not 220 meters with
> > 1000BASE-SX on MMF
> > but the fact that 10GBASE-SR and 10GBASE-LX4 are shipping and
> both
> > reach
> > 300 meters. Customers have the clear requirement to go 300 meters
> > on MMF
> > both installed and the new OM3 fiber. This is reality today.
> >
> > Offset launches
> > Customers (my customers) and me (a customer) need one LRM
> solution for
>
> > 50 and 62.5 micron fiber. I am not convinced that one offset
> launch
> > condition
> > will be optimal for both 62.5 and 50 micron fiber. I and my
> > customers
> > would rather deal with the complexity of a dedicated MCP than
> with
> > two
> > different products with different built in offsets. Based on
> > engineering
> > experience with a related project, I am also not convinced that
> an
> > internal
> > offset will offer any cost savings on the module cost over the
> cost
> > of a
> > module plus MCP.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruce Tolley
> > Product Line Manager
> > Transceiver Module Group
> > 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!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com