Re: Going the distance
- To: Paul Bottorff <pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Going the distance
- From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:21:13 -0700
- Organization: Transcendata, Inc.
- References: <3.0.32.19990701171533.00a4f76c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul,
I have alsready said that I don't have a problem with a SMF objective of 10 km.
However, one of 40 km may have too much "WAN baggage" associated with it. Please
allow me too suggest the following strategy, which I believe follows Jonathan's
general strategy, but in reverse (easier motions first, more difficult ones last):
First, I ask you to support my proposed ISO/IEC 11801 motion which contains
objectives which are a slam dunk to meet and exceed. If this succeeds, we finally
have a base to start working on real market objectives and can start considering
what the various PHY proposals can do. If it fails, I believe that all subsequent
distance discussion and motions will be painful.
Second, You propose a motion setting a 10 km intermediate reach objective. I will
second it and speak strongly in favor of it. I believe that this objective may be
a slam dunk and the final standard may well specify a support distance of 15 km or
so. However, 10 km would also be my best choice as an objective.
Third, You propose a separate motion setting a 40 km long reach objective. You
should probably look for a much stauncher and more educated supporter at this
distance from the WAN space than me.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Paul Bottorff wrote:
> Rich:
>
> I can't support a motion for campus only cable. Though you believe we will
> exceed 2 km, I'm uncertain since it will depend on the optical solutions
> selected. I definitely need at least 10 km to support the motion. I would
> propose adding to the motion another sentence saying:
>
> Move to adopt as an HSSG objective:
>
> And Metro cabling plant distances at
> a. 2 km for short reach
> b. 10 km for intermediate reach
> c. 40 km for long reach
>
> Paul
>
> At 03:26 PM 7/1/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >Bruce,
> >
> >It is so that we can have one objective for campus cabling with a minimum
> required
> >support distance of 2 km.
> >
> >It should be understood that this is predominantly a SMF domain.
> >
> >We can then go ahead with a 10 GbE standards project and exceed these
> objectives
> >with specific optics, cable, and signaling proposals and do a credible
> >technical/ecomomic feasibility investigation before discarding some
> proposals.
> >
> >Please note that the GbE objective on this issue reads:
> >
> > 11. Provide a family of Physical Layer specifications which support a link
> >distance of:
> >
> > c. At least 3 km on single mode fiber
> >
> >The GbE standard specifies 5 km, and many GbE products support 10 km. Some
> support
> >even longer distances.
> >
> >Alternatively, I've heard these other numbers mentioned for SMF support
> for 10 GbE:
> >
> >3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, 100 km.
> >
> >Did I miss any? Are you going to get 75% agreement on any of these numbers in
> >Montreal?
> >
> > Some people don't like ranges as your 5 - 10 km suggests.
> >
> >I say it's too early to fill in the exact supported distances for SMF.
> That's why I
> >like 2 km as an objective for campus cabling. It is also a number backed
> up by a
> >panel of experts, ISO/IEC 11801.
> >
> >- Rich
> >
> >--
> >
> >Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >> Rich:
> >>
> >> Would you please explain again why a goal of 5 to 10 km is not on this
> motion?
> >>
> >> I thought we had seen multiple comments that such a goal is technically
> feasible
> >> at reasonable cost.
> >>
> >> Bruce Tolley
> >> 3Com Corporation
> >>
> >> Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 07/01/99 02:24:05 PM
> >>
> >> Please respond to rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> Sent by: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> To: "Cornejo, Edward , Giles Frazier <grf@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Grow, Bob"
> >> <bob.grow@xxxxxxxxx>, HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> >> cc: (Bruce Tolley/HQ/3Com)
> >> Subject: Re: Going the distance
> >>
> >> 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
> >> > > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 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
-------------------------------------------------------------
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