Re: Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call

[Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan,

My opinion is that you're being far too paranoid at this stage in the game. I
believe that a motion to:

"Support the premises cabling plant distances as specified in ISO/IEC 11801"

The distances supported in ISO/IEC 11801 are:

100 m for horizontal cabling (applicable to copper, MMF, SMF)

550 m for vertical cabling: (applicable to SMF and possibly MMF)

2-3 km for campus cabling: (applicable to SMF)

These numbers were the basis of the distance objectives for Gigabit Ethernet.

If a roll call vote is taken and individuals voters know they will be questioned
on why they would vote NO, I believe the outcome would uninimously in favor of
the motion.

This motion represents very positive start to a 10 Gigabit Ethernet standard. We
then went on to exceed these figures by a large margin in the completed
standard.

We all know we can do better than 100 m over MMF and 2-3 km on SMF.

I'm concerned that your strategy pits proponents of one signaling scheme against
the other since each signaling scheme combined with a specific laser type,
wavelegth and fiber type may be the only alternative that can achieve a
particular distance. Furthermore, that scheme may be far from the most cost
efficient scheme and may be the most expensive and conficting in nature with one
of our key PAR 5 Criteria: Economic Feasibility.

--

Jonathan Thatcher wrote:

> All,
>
> It is actually a little more complicated than that (intentionally) and you
> are both right. The goal is to first pass a motion on an objective using
> some subportion that has a very high probability of success. After that, add
> more contraversial sub-objectives. Add these in a way that all potential,
> reasonable opportunities are represented. Start with the ones that are most
> aggressive. Vote through these options until the group believes the right
> level of challenge has been acheived.
>
> The potential problem is there may be people who think in terms of sour
> grapes: "I couldn't have my lunatic fringe solution so I will try to spoil
> the process-at-large."
>
> jonathan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter_Wang@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Peter_Wang@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 5:03 PM
> > To: HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)
> > Cc: 'HSSG Distance Ad Hoc'
> > Subject: Re: Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan's original proposed process is as you re-iterated,
> > at least that's how
> > I understood it.  However, I thought Jonathan actually
> > described the reverse
> > process for the short reach distance options this morning,
> > i.e. start with the
> > least likely option and move toward the most likely.  It may
> > facilitate ad hoc
> > group meeting next Monday evening if we can agree on the
> > process to over the
> > reflector?
> > -Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)" <del_hanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
> > 06/28/99 02:14:35
> > PM
> >
> > Sent by:  "HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)" <del_hanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > To:   "'HSSG Distance Ad Hoc'" <stds-802-3-hssg-distance@xxxxxxxx>
> > cc:    (Peter Wang/HQ/3Com)
> > Subject:  Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > HSSG Distance Ad Hoc
> >
> > This is a brief summary of our conference call at 8 AM PST
> > today (6-28-99)
> > for those who did not participate. Listed below are the two
> > levels of issues
> > we discussed, as distributed previously by Jonathan. We need to frame
> > motions around these issues which can pass the 7-5-99 Plenary
> > by >75% vote.
> > We agreed to implement Jonathan's strategy of making a
> > sequence of motions;
> > the top level of which should be eminently passable so that
> > is a subsequent
> > item fails, we are not left with nothing.
> >    As expected, we did not reach unanimous conclusions on any
> > of the line
> > items. Based on reflector comments and our discussions today, I would
> > recommend that in the interim that we each think about a
> > proposal for a
> > motion on these issues that has a likelihood of gaining >75% consensus
> > rather than what might be our particular hot button.
> >    Jonathan announced that the HSSG Distance Ad Hoc will have
> > a meeting
> > running from 8 PM to ? on Monday, 7-5-99, to review and frame
> > these motions
> > which we will present at the HSSG Wednesday AM meeting. See you there.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Del
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Top Level Motion/Applications:
> >
> > 1. Support the traditional LAN environment.
> >
> > 2. Support the extended Ethernet environment as specified by
> > 1000BASE-LX
> > link lengths and point-to-point links used in common practice
> > to reach into
> > the MAN environment.
> >
> > 3. Support direct attachment to the WAN infrastructure.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Second Level Motion/Link Lenfth Cases:
> >
> > Possible link length alternatives:
> >
> > 1. 100 meters over MMF (850 and 1300)
> > 2. 300 meters over MMF (850? and 1300?)
> > 3. 500 (550) meters over MMF (850? and 1300?)
> > 4. 3 km over SMF (1300)
> > 5. 5 km over SMF (1300)
> > 6. 10 km over SMF (1300)
> > 7. 20-40 km over SMF (1300)
> > 8. 80-120 km over SMF (1500)
> >
> > To sort through these, I think we need to consider some of
> > the "traditional"
> > assumptions/arguments/positions that were used in Gigabit
> > Ethernet when
> > making decisions about fiber, wavelength, and distance:
> >
> > a. We should support the existing infrastructure (meaning the
> > existing cable
> > plants)
> > b. We should minimize the number of PHY choices
> > c. We should minimize the cost of implementation
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >

--

Best Regards,
Rich

-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taborek Sr.    Tel: 650 210 8800 x101 or 408 370 9233
Principal Architect         Fax: 650 940 1898 or 408 374 3645
Transcendata, Inc.           Email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1029 Corporation Way              http://www.transcendata.com
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4305    Alt email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx