Re: Going the distance
- TO: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Going the distance
- From: BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:03:15 -0700
- CC: ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx, grf@xxxxxxxxxx, bob.grow@xxxxxxxxx, stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
- In-Reply-To: <377BDC74.C68D120F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rich,
As so many market surveys have indicated, the vast majority of MMF links,
including those used for vertical wiring, are 300m and below. Specifying
100m for horizontal and 550m for vertical, rules out a PMD that can support
300m being used for vertical cabling. I can't support this motion. This is
not a watered-down, generic motion that everyone will agree on. If the
"horizontal" and "vertical" wording were removed, or if 550m was changed to
300m (or something less), then it would be more palatable. In fact, we
might as well go back to the original motion that was tabled in June which
listed only "100m on MMF" and "2km on SMF" as goals.
-Brian Lemoff
HP Labs
P.S. You may consider either of my suggestions as a friendly amendment if
you wish.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Going the distance
Author: Non-HP-rtaborek (rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) at HP-PaloAlto,mimegw2
Date: 7/1/99 2:24 PM
Hi Ed,
Your opinion and the same of others is exactly what I was afraid of. Therefore,
and since we're only in effect word-smithing a PROPOSED motion that I will make
at the appropriate time in Montreal. I'd like to offer the following rewording
of the motion, changing only the number 3 km to 2 km in Bob Grow's amendment to
the proposed motion. The motion would now read:
---------- Begin Proposed Motion ----------
Move to adopt as an HSSG objective:
Support premises cabling plant distances as specified in ISO/IEC 11801
a. 100 m for horizontal cabling
b. 550 m for vertical cabling
c. 2 km for campus cabling
Mover: Rich Taborek Seconder: Howard Frazier
---------- End Proposed Motion ----------
Please observe that:
- Howard Frazier must again second the rewording
- Bob Grow must accept these changes to his proposed amendment
- The motion addresses objectives, and not specific PMD variants
- A particular PHY variant, one approved for inclusion in the standard (if we
ever get a standards project underway), may specify a particular fiber type
and/or distance and/or PHY (except for fiber type) proposal.
- Nowhere in the motion is any distance associated with a particular fiber type
or PHY proposal
- Nowhere in the motion is any particular fiber type excluded.
- Nowhere in the motion is any particular PHY proposal excluded.
- Nowhere in the motion is exceeding the objectives precluded, in fact,
exceeding the objectives is encouraged.
To the last point: We just can't seem to agree on HOW MUCH specifically to
exceed the objective. The purpose of my proposed motion is to delay the decision
of HOW MUCH until we can reasonably achieve consensus on that decision.
--
"Cornejo, Edward (Edward)" wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
--
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