Re: [10GMMF] Customer Issues with LRM
Val,
I need to clarify my reply I sent you yesterday. 10GBASE-LRM represents
today among the greatest challenge in the standardization process we are
facing-off for using old deployed multimode fiber infrastructure. EDC
stands as the most promising solution for overcoming fiber bandwidth
limitation in terms of cost, size, power consumption and reliability.
The original target reach of 300 meters is still our goal and according
to statistical analysis performed on deployed fibers and supported by
widely recognized fiber modeling, it seems that it can be achieved with
approximately 95% confidence. If we are discussing today the performance
of the multimode fibers by using e.g. the Cambridge set of 108 fibers
then we are discussing something like the performance of the worst 5% of
the installed base. It seems to me from this work that it is not
possible to cover with EDC all of these on a 300m range and we have to
select some of these fibers. The 220m should be covered to a higher
degree and that represents the actual state of the development.
Regarding my concern I stated in the mail I sent you yesterday, I was
referring to the guaranteed condition to achieve 100% coverage using EDC
along 300 meters for "every" kind of multimode fiber. I understand your
concern regarding my explicit position but I still guarantee you that
all our effort is devoted in achieving the 300 meters target in the EDC
implemented 10GBASE-LRM standard.
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: Donnerstag, 11. November 2004 00:09
To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: 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