RE: Going the distance
- To: "'Bruce Tolley (E-mail)'" <Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Going the distance
- From: "Cornejo, Edward (Edward)" <ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:01:53 -0400
- Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bruce,
Thanks for the reply. I know X-premium $$$ are expected for longer distance
solutions, but what I was really trying to point out is... wouldn't be nice
to have a lower cost solution for shorter reaches <=2km. Or is the expected
premium you mention below acceptable even for 2km or less. Or would you like
to have the option of both?
Ed-Lucent
> ----------
> From: Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx[SMTP:Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 11:33 AM
> To: Cornejo, Edward (Edward)
> Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Going the distance
>
>
>
> Ed:
>
> I assume it as a given that the further we want to go the more it will
> cost and
> the folks building networks today are willing to pay more for the
> distance.
>
> The distance dicussion has bounced around on the various merits of PHY
> proposals
> not the distance goals per se.
>
> I was sitting in the room when some of the work was done that gave us -LX
> parts
> that could go 5 to 10 km. My recollection is that this was by-product of
> the
> attempt to mitigate DMD. However it happened, we need to realize that the
> Ethernet world is changing today. Customers are building very long reach
> GbE
> networks and these distances are more important than the historical the
> FDDI
> distances because these GbE customers will be the ones who want to deploy
> 10
> GbE.
>
> And Yes these customers will pay more for the 10 km 10 GbE interfaces than
> they
> pay for the 2 km interfaces. Will customers pay 20X the price of a
> 1000BASE-LX
> port, probably not, less than 10X certainly, 10X to 15X maybe.
>
> Bruce Tolley
>
>
>
>
> "Cornejo, Edward (Edward)" <ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx> on 07/01/99 08:13:49 AM
>
> Sent by: "Cornejo, Edward (Edward)" <ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> cc: (Bruce Tolley/HQ/3Com)
> Subject: RE: Going the distance
>
>
>
>
>
> Bruce/Larry,
>
> Before deciding your minimum link distance requirements, consider the
> following.
>
> The 10km GE extension was possible with some minor spec modifications to
> the
> laser characteristics. However, this will not be the case for 10GE serial
> approaches. To extend 10GE to 10km or 15km you will be going to a
> different
> laser technology, which will be higher in cost than the 2km laser source.
> This does not necessarily mean that the serial 10GE 15km solution will be
> higher in cost than the WWDM; this is still to be proven, but it does mean
> it will cost more than the 2km serial solution.
>
> Ed-Lucent
>
> > ----------
> > From:
> > ldmiller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[SMTP:ldmiller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 8:35 PM
> > To: Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx; Les Poltrack
> > Cc: Ed Grivna; rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx;
> > stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Going the distance
> >
> >
> > Bruce,
> >
> > Your percentage (30%) rings a bell here, and we are insisting that LX
> > transceivers be qualified for 10 km for EVERYTHING in the enterprise
> > space;
> > most vendors seem to be offering that as standard anyway now.
> >
> > Larry Miller
> > Nortel Networks
> >
> > At 05:02 PM 6/30/99 -0700, Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Les and Ed:
> > >
> > >We might be able to estimate the potential size of the 5 to 10 km
> > application
> > >segment by looking at shipments of LX ports today if the transceiver
> > vendors
> > >have the data and are willing to share it.
> > >
> > >But more important than the mix of LX to SX ports is the fact that
> many
> > >customers today have a requirement to go these kind of distances. The
> > number of
> > >LX ports sold might be small compared to SX but this kind of
> application
> > is
> > >pulling a lot of GbE business. If you want me to quantify it, I'd say
> of
> > the
> > >last ten customers I have been in meetings with, 3 of them were looking
> > to
> > use
> > >the 10 km LX solution to go 5 to 10 km.
> > >
> > >Also I am not all that comfortable with the unstated assumption in much
> > of
> > the
> > >previous debate that the short distances are in fact the major market
> for
> > 10
> > >GbE. The logical application for 10GbE in the LAN and Campus is to
> > aggregate
> > >lots of GbE segments, which means between buildings and between rather
> > large
> > >capacity switches that could be a long way apart (shall we call it a
> > MAN?).
> > >
> > >Bruce Tolley
> > >3Com Corporation
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Les Poltrack <lap@xxxxxxxxx> on 06/30/99 12:54:03 PM
> > >
> > >Sent by: Les Poltrack <lap@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > >To: Ed Grivna <elg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bruce
> > > Tolley/HQ/3Com
> > >cc: hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx, stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: Going the distance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Ed, you raise a good point and I wish I could answer with an
> > >absolute percentage on the requirement.
> > >
> > >There was another point raised that this might be more of a
> > >marketing question than anything else. For what it's worth,
> > >my subjective marketing perspective, based on talking to
> > >hundreds of users about Gigabit Ethernet and their expectations
> > >for Ethernet backbone technologies, is that Bruce Tolley's
> > >suggestion of 5 to 10 km is right on the mark.
> > >
> > >I don't have the incontrovertible quantitative data I'd like to
> > >have on the distribution of distances required, but I would say
> > >that a good point was raised earlier that the fact that most
> > >long wavelength Gigabit Ethernet devices support 10km has
> > >created somewhat of an expectation for backbone distances
> > >in customer's mind and support of 10km by 10 Gigabit Ethernet
> > >devices would materially enhance the adoption of the technology.
> > >
> > >My two cents is that 10km is the right goal for a volume singlemode
> > >high speed backbone technology.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Les Poltrack
> > >Cisco Systems, Inc.
> > >
> > >At 11:35 AM 6/30/99 -0500, Ed Grivna wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Bruce, while I do not dispute your facts, I do question your
> > >>conclusion. Just because some small part of the populace is doing
> > >>something does not necessarily require that it be standarized.
> > >>
> > >>As is evident by the statement itself, for those small segments of
> > >>the market that have needs beyond those that are standardized, there
> > >>are often low-cost avenues that they can persue to fill those needs.
> > >>
> > >>The fact that they are using LX beyond the rated distances even
> > >>puts into question if what they have is really a 1000Base-LX link.
> > >>It may well be constructed with LX compatible components and be
> > >>running the proper protocols, but that doesn't necessarily make it
> > >>an LX link.
> > >>
> > >>The requirements for the standards committee are to standarized those
> > >>areas of the technology where such effort would benefit the overall
> > >>user community, not 1 or 2 users or potential users. Unless this
> > >>market segment can be quantified into a reasonable percentage of
> > >>the overall market, I question whether a standarization effort is
> > >>appropriate.
> > >>
> > >>Are we talking 5%, 1%, 0.1%, or 0.001% of the market? At some point
> > >>it is necessary to make a cut, and state that the user may create
> links
> > >>beyond these bounds, but that their implementation is beyond the scope
> > >>of the standard.
> > >>
> > >>-Ed Grivna
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Bruce Tolley wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> The point has been made before that today customers are already
> going
> > >>> 5 to 10 Km with 1000BASE-LX. There should be no debate that it is a
> > >>> market requirement to go 5 to 10 km with 10 GbE.
> > >>>
> > >>> While I am willing to consider accepting a conservative 2 to 3 km
> > >>> goal as the official goal of the project, we need to acknowledge
> > >>> that this is a conservative goal and, as we get on with the work
> > >>> of the project , we should investigate whether we can stretch this
> > goal..
> > >>>
> > >>> Bruce Tolley
> > >>> 3Com Corporation
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 06/29/99 05:01:32 PM
> > >>>
> > >>> Please respond to rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>
> > >>> Sent by: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> To: Howard Frazier <hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx>, HSSG
> > <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> > >>> cc: (Bruce Tolley/HQ/3Com)
> > >>> Subject: Re: Going the distance
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Howard,
> > >>>
> > >>> I will gladly accept your suggestion of removing the portion of the
> > >>> motion in parenthesis as a friendly amendment post-haste given your
> > >>> support of this motion as a seconder.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Rich
> > >>>
> > >>> Howard Frazier wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of adopting
> the
> > >>> > 802.3z link distance objectives for 10 Gig. We should remember
> that
> > >>> > we are still in the study group phase, trying to scope out a
> > project.
> > >>> > We can always adjust the objectives later.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Let me therefore state my support for Rich's proposed motion:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > "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)
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Rich, I would encourage you to drop the parenthesis.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > If we adopt this objective, we can make progress on the rest of
> the
> > >>> > work we need to do as a study group. As was demonstrated in
> 802.3z,
> > >>> > we will need to review the objectives periodically, and revise
> them
> > >>> > if there is consensus to do so.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Howard Frazier
> > >>> > Cisco Sytems, Inc.
> > >>>
> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> 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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>