RE: Distance objective <-> Install base objective
- To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Distance objective <-> Install base objective
- From: Jonathan Thatcher <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:13:10 -0600
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rich,
See below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 3:15 PM
> To: Jonathan Thatcher; HSSG
> Subject: Re: Distance objective <-> Install base objective
>
>
> The HSSG copper ad hoc has proposes the following strawman:
>
> Straw objectives:
>
> The copper ad hoc membership (those who raised their hands
> in Idaho) support
> the following objectives for higher speed copper.
>
> Equipment room - short copper @10 gb/s minimum length
> of 10 meters.
> Horizontal Cabling - long copper @ a minimum of 2.5
> gb/s on a minimum
> length of 100 meters of category 6 cabling.
>
> Those familiar with ISO/IEC 11801 understand that it covers
> UTP. Clarification
> (a) in My proposed motion further states: 100 m for
> horizontal cabling. This
> distance objective is then met by any media, including UTP,
> STP, MMF, SMF, etc.
> that can attain or exceed this distance. The is written
> specifically to get us
> going on a standards project which does not exclude any
> reasonable PMD variant
> to support 10 GbE.
I assume that you meant something like: "This distance objective is then met
by any media" and PHY combination "... that can attain or exceed this
distance."
I interpret this to mean that the intent is for the HSSG (and its follow-on
task force) to specify the PHYs and correspondingly determine what MEDIA /
distance combinations will work.
I interpret this to mean that the HSSG will *NOT* look at the current
capabilities (specifications as specified in ISO/IEC 11801; 11801-A; etc)
and distance requirements for each MEDIA type and then design the PHYs that
will work thereon.
Is this a correct interpretation of these statements and the objective(s) of
your motion? By the way, the questions below were not meant to be
rhetorical.
jonathan
> This HSSG distance motion is intentionally
> written to be
> orthogonal to the HSSG speed issue in order to resolve these
> two religious
> issues in the most expeditious manner.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>
> > Rich (et. al.),
> >
> > It seems to me that these two statements are very different:
> >
> > 1. ...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
> > 2. ...support 100m on MMF
> >
> > So let me ask the motioner: Does "support the premises cabling plant
> > distances as specified in ISO/IEC 11801" imply anything
> about supporting
> > those cable types as specified in 11801 which are typically
> used to achieve
> > the specified distances? Or, does supporting statement 1
> above imply support
> > for MMF as THE solution? If so, does it require support of
> the current
> > install base of fiber optic cable?
> >
> > This issue is one of the, if not the most, critical issue we need to
> > resolve. If we are not going to try to resolve it in this
> objective, how,
> > where, and when are we going to resolve it?
> >
> > I would like to reference the work done in 1000BASE-T.
> Without going through
> > the history, they chose a very aggressive technical
> solution to enable them
> > to operate at 100 meters over the existing CAT-5 (yes, I
> understand there
> > are some issues here) install base. They did this, I am
> sure, because
> > marketing said it was essential to do so.
> >
> > So please -- especially the OEM switch, hub, and NIC
> manufacturers -- WHAT
> > ARE THE MARKET REQUIREMENTS!?
> >
> > jonathan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 10:36 PM
> > > To: BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG
> > > Subject: Re: Distance objective
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > OK, now we're negotiating!
> > >
> > > If I interpret your note correctly, you would not oppose a
> > > list consisting of
> > > two items: 100m on MMF, 2km on SMF.
> > >
> > > This is now very close to my ISO/IEC 11801 list excluding
> > > only the 550 m
> > > number.
> > >
> > > I have no problem excluding this number. However, we are
> a study group
> > > investing higher speed Ethernet solutions for copper as well
> > > as fiber. I
> > > believe that my "100 m for horizontal cabling" objective
> > > covers the copper UTP
> > > folks adequately. Your 100m on MMF specifically excludes UTP
> > > and the 2km on SMF
> > > certrainly doesn't help it.
> > >
> > > What would you say if I deleted the "b. 550 m for vertical
> > > cabling" item from
> > > my proposed motion and left "a. 100 m for horizontal
> > > cabling" and "c. 2 km for
> > > campus cabling"? This way the objectives are still tied to
> > > ISO/IEC 11801, "a"
> > > covers UTP and MMF, "c" covers SMF.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rich,
> > > >
> > > > Objective 13 in GbE was separate from the objective
> > > that explicitly
> > > > listed fiber types and distance. This is similar
> to Bob Grow's
> > > > proposal for 10GbE, i.e. one objective identical to 13
> > > below, and the
> > > > other to support 100m on MMF and 3km on SMF. You are
> > > confusing these
> > > > two objectives. I will not vote for this proposal for
> > > the reasons I
> > > > mentioned earlier. The distances and fiber types
> > > listed below seem to
> > > > be those that have created the least number of
> > > objections, both from
> > > > PMD vendors and system vendors.
> > > >
> > > > 100m on MMF
> > > > 300m on MMF
> > > > 2km on SMF
> > > > 10km on SMF
> > > > 40km on SMF
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this is a lengthy list, and if we want to shorten
> > > it without
> > > > precluding viable PHY options, we can delete the
> > > longer distances,
> > > > i.e.:
> > > >
> > > > 100m on MMF
> > > > 2km on SMF
> > > >
> > > > I don't feel that this latter list is a particularly
> > > challenging set
> > > > of objectives, but I'm quite confident that most would
> > > agree that the
> > > > goals should be no less than this, and, as you have
> > > mentioned, it
> > > > would not preclude longer-reach PMDs from the standard.
> > > >
> > > > Remember, 10GbE is not GbE. The physics is different
> > > and we have also
> > > > learned some things since the GbE objectives were set out.
> > > >
> > > > -Brian Lemoff
> > > > HP Labs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Brian,
> > > >
> > > > Your argument about vertical and horizontal does not
> > > hold water for
> > > > GbE that
> > > > essentially used the same objective I'm proposing with
> > > the standard
> > > > supporting
> > > > distances of 220, 275, 500 and 550 m on MMF for
> some of its PMD
> > > > variants. That
> > > > objective was:
> > > >
> > > > 13. Support media selected from ISO/ IEC 11801
> > > >
> > > > Did you, or would you have have voted against that
> > > GbEobjective?
> > > >
> > > > - Rich
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>