RE: IEEE 802.3 Requirements

["Chang, Edward S" <Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Joe, Michael, Bruce:

It is the right process we are working on to develop a market-oriented
specification or user friendly specification to optimize the performance of
products.  We may generate a most cost-effective products by keeping
exchange ideas. 

First of all, all datacom equipment have built-in error-check routines to
count the number of retries with a given client.  When that number reaches
the preset "water-level", it will give up retry and report the problem.
These mechanisms are already in place, and we do not need to reinvent or
re-invest.  We may modify the error check routines to fit our purpose. 

Second, we, TIA FO2.2, have studied many of the MM fibers in industry with
varieties of launch conditions; therefore, we should be able to come up with
a realistic, optimized cable plant design to drastically improve the
performance, and at the same time, reject those DMD, or bad fibers.
Remember, those are defected fibers, which is wrong to be in the market in
the first place.  We have pretty good idea how it may shape up.  We are not
talking taking-chance with ignorance, or try-and-error.  We all have product
responsibility; as a result, reliability and customer satisfaction are
always the first priority.  It implies that the rejection ratio is in the
minimum, limited to those DMD and bad fibers only. 

Third, with Joe's idea and Michael's idea, we can further implement weed-out
mechanism to remove those at the first installation by servicemen, or even
use auto-negotiation to reduce the data   rate on fly, and yet still very
cost-effective.  I think these are great ideas to be explored.

Ed Chang
Unisys Corporation           





-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 12:11 PM
To: msalzman@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: IEEE 802.3 Requirements





Michael:

I agree with your statement completely.  If we decide to support the entire
installed base of MM fiber, we will need to either "over-engineer" the PHY
to
work almost all the time, find simple way to qualify the link, or establish
some
sort of auto-negotiation so the link comes up at 1 Gbps if the fiber cannot
support 10 Gbps.

We cannot rely on trial and error.  If DMD raises its hoary head again,
customers will balk at early adoption.

Bruce Tolley
Manager, Business Development
3Com Corp
voice: 408-326-5950
internet: bruce_tolley@xxxxxxxx




"Michael M. Salzman" <msalzman@xxxxxxx> on 05/19/99 02:31:46 AM

Please respond to msalzman@xxxxxxxxxx

Sent by:  "Michael M. Salzman" <msalzman@xxxxxxx>


To:   stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (Bruce Tolley/HQ/3Com)
Subject:  RE: IEEE 802.3 Requirements





Hi Bruce, Ed, et al,

My experience is that on average no installer tests fiber for any thing
other than connectivity.  To imagine that these fellows will carefully
follow some timeconsuming and deliberate procedure to check out the cable is
wishful thinking.  You are right that DMD is an innate 'feature' of most
installed base fibers.  The ethernet community only recently discovered its
ubiquity and impact.  Nevertheless we can expect the vast unwashed masses to
blithely ignore any special handling and testing requirements untill their
installation fails to come up and then they will search for causes.

In the case of 10 Gig, due to its novelty and likely expense, I think we can
lay down new standards for fiber to support it, and customers would go along
with the concept.  For those stubborn souls who insist on deploying the
technology on existing fiber, I think the 10GEA can develop recommended test
procedures and recommended equipment sets, and perhaps work with BICSI to
develop a "gigabit technician" certification program.   If we do not address
this prosaic aspect of our industry we are doomed to seeing more trial and
error installations.

Mike.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Behalf Of Chang,
> Edward S
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 06:36
> To: Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx; Chang, Edward S
> Cc: Thomas Dineen; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: IEEE 802.3 Requirements
>
>
>
> Bruce:
>
> The 62.5 um fibers have been used for over 15 or 20 years.
> However, we just
> started paying attention to the DMD fibers two years ago.  Because of the
> small DMD population, industry did not paying attention to it.
> In fact, the
> DMD fibers have been with us since the graded index fibers were
> introduced.
> DMD fibers are defected parts like any other products having
> defected parts.
>
> In the past, the MM fibers, particularly 62.5 fibers, were only used with
> LED sources over-filing the fibers, which is hardly capable of creating a
> DMD results except low bandwidth.  It was until GbE requiring laser over
> 62.5 um fiber, the DMD has not been identified as a detrimental
> problem.
>
> The fiber vendors do not characterize "DMD" as one of the parameters in
> their commercial specification due to its very small, negligible
> population.
> As a result, no one really pays attention to verify it, unless an
> experienced engineer is purposely looking for DMD fibers.  Some time, just
> to identify DMD fibers from the waveforms is not a simple job.
>
> Ed Chang
> Unisys Corporation
> Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 1999 5:29 PM
> To: Chang, Edward S
> Cc: Thomas Dineen; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: IEEE 802.3 Requirements
>
>
>
>
>
> Ed:
> As far as I know, hardly any "DMD fibers" have been identified to date.
>
> Bruce
>
>