RE: Going the distance
- To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Going the distance
- From: "Cornejo, Edward (Edward)" <ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 15:43:15 -0400
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rich,
I would be against 3km, and in favor of 2km because of my previous comments
and those of Bruce LaVigne.
Ed-LU
> ----------
> From: Rich Taborek[SMTP:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Reply To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 3:09 PM
> To: Grow, Bob; HSSG
> Subject: Re: Going the distance
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I can accept your ammendment to my motion as friendly in general. One
> specific
> point is the choice of a single distance 3 km instead of 2 km. I'd like to
> solicit comments from others as to whether this distinction (BY ITSELF!)
> would
> make the motion harder to attain 75% support. If others agree that the
> specific
> change from 2-3 km to 3 km is OK I will accept it as friendly.
>
> Howard?
>
> --
>
> "Grow, Bob" wrote:
>
> > Rich:
> >
> > I am in support of your compromise if with some discussion the Study
> Group
> > appears as deadlocked as the Ad Hoc is. To expedite matters, you should
> > phrase your motion as an objective, not as guidelines for defining an
> > objective. (We would still have to vote on the objective after voting on
> the
> > motion you outline below.) The third distance should only include one
> > length.
> >
> > Move to adopt as an HSSG objective:
> >
> > x. Support premises cabling plant distances as specified in ISO/IEC
> 11801
> > a. 100 m for horizontal cabling
> > b. 550 m for vertical cabling
> > c. 3 km for campus cabling
> >
> > --Bob Grow
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 5:15 PM
> > To: BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG
> > Subject: Re: Going the distance
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > Please keep in mind that my proposed motion to use ISO/IEC premises
> cabling
> > standards is based on our inability to overwhelmingly agree (75%) to
> > distance
> > objectives. Our best attempts at a motion failed in Coeur d'Alene. The
> > distance ad
> > hoc has reached no better consensus, and I'm afraid that Jonathan
> Thatcher's
> > proposed process is too convoluted to set clear objectives. I'm araid
> that
> > blending
> > in the myriad market requirements for 10 GbE, 1 GbE specifications for a
> > specific
> > fiber type, requirements from 1 GbE links which greatly exceed the
> standard
> > and use
> > non standard (enhanced) cable and/or components, and the capabilities of
> any
> > proposed 10 GbE schemes serve only to make any specific distance
> decisions
> > harder to
> > make and attain the concensus of 75% of the group. Remember also that
> we're
> > a study
> > group, and that you'll get your change to get your specific 'better'
> > distance into
> > the standard when we actually have a standards project to get it into.
> >
> > As an individual straw poll, would you as an individual IEEE voter, vote
> > against the
> > following motion, if made?
> >
> > That the distance objective 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
> > 550 m for vertical cabling
> > 2-3 km for campus cabling
> >
> > It is assumed that the 10 GbE standard will exceed these objectives
> quite
> > handily as
> > was the case for GbE.
> >
> > --
> >
> > BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > Paul:
> > >
> > > I believe that the WWDM approach that we have presented, when
> used
> > > with uncooled, unisolated, reduced spec (on SMSR, linearity, RIN)
> > DFBs
> > > will cost equal or less than the serial 10G FP laser approach
> that
> > > Lucent has proposed for 2km, and significantly less than the
> isolated
> > > DFB approach that they have proposed for 15km. This would
> support
> > > ~300m on 62.5 micron fiber, and ~10km on SMF. To push this
> approach
> > > to 15km may involve tightening the SMSR or RIN spec which will
> > > significantly increase the cost (since much of the low-cost
> nature of
> > > the approach depends upon using low-cost DFBs).
> > >
> > > I realize that there is an ongoing debate about relative cost,
> but it
> > > would be a shame to set the objectives at 2km and 15km, when
> there is
> > > a potentially very low-cost solution that can go 10km. I have no
> > > problem with a 2km and 10km objective, since I believe we can
> satisfy
> > > both with a single cost-competitive solution.
> > >
> > > I realize that Rich Taborek and others have criticized PMD
> suppliers
> > > (such as HP and Lucent) on this reflector for suggesting
> objectives,
> > > based on what each of our solutions can handle, but I don't think
> we
> > > can afford to ignore it either. I don't deny that I favor 300m
> on
> > > installed base MMF and 10km on SMF in large part because that is
> what
> > > our WWDM module can support. I have no problem backing off on
> these
> > > (say to 200m and 5km) if it allows alternative PMDs to be
> considered.
> > > Lucent wants 2km (not 3km) to be an objective so that their
> serial FP
> > > laser module is not excluded. I'd like 10km (and not 15km) for
> the
> > > same reason (although I believe we're still competitive at 2km).
> > >
> > > Distance objectives should reflect what the customers need, but
> > should
> > > be influenced by what the available technologies can achieve.
> > >
> > > -Brian Lemoff
> > > HP Labs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________ Reply Separator
> > _________________________________
> > > Subject: Re: Going the distance
> > > Author: Non-HP-pbottorf (pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) at
> > HP-PaloAlto,mimegw2
> > > Date: 6/30/99 3:24 PM
> > >
> > > Bruce:
> > >
> > > I support your outlook. We already have 5-10 km with gigabit.
> Supporting
> > > these distances is necessary to support the installed base. Since the
> > > technology cut-off point is around 20 km and since a standard MAN
> distance
> > > is 15 km I'd prefer a slightly more aggressive objective of 15 km.
> This
> > > would still give reasonable design margin. I also believe lower cost
> > > technology exits below 2.5 km motivating a 2 km specification. We
> could
> > > either specify a single 15 km objective which covers all the
> applications
> > > with a higher component cost or 2 km and 15 km each with a different
> price
> > > point.
> > >
> > > I would like to see further extension into the MAN. GigE is selling
> day
> > > with reaches over 50 km. The next standard distance is 40 km. I've
> heard
> > > this distance was chosen to match the spacing of microwave towers.
> With
> > the
> > > 40 km distance I believe we would have all that is necessary to build
> > Metro
> > > networks.
> > >
> > > The three standard distances on SMF would be 2, 15, and 40 km. Each of
> > > these ranges I believe falls into a different technology with a
> different
> > > price point. If anyone has a technology which can do all three at the
> 2 km
> > > price then all the better.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > At 09:13 AM 6/30/99 -0700, Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Paul A. Bottorff, Director Switching Architecture
> > > Bay Architecture Laboratory
> > > Nortel Networks, Inc.
> > > 4401 Great America Parkway
> > > Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
> > > Tel: 408 495 3365 Fax: 408 495 1299 ESN: 265 3365
> > > email: pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>