Re: Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call

[tszostak1@xxxxxxx]

Rich,

 

Just managed to get back from the ISO 11801. The new revision planned for release by 2000 specifies the 300 meters distance in addition to 100, 550 and 2000. So is the new TIA-568-B. My recommendation is to add the 300 meters to the motion reflecting the above standards, distance survey results and end-user migration to Centralized Cabling architecture based on 300 meters distance.

 

See you in Montreal.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: Jonathan Thatcher <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>; HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1) <del_hanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 10:31 AM

Subject: Re: Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call

> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> My opinion 
is that you're being far too paranoid at this stage in the game. I
> 
believe that a motion to:
> 
> "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)
> 
> These numbers were the basis of the 
distance objectives for Gigabit Ethernet.
> 
> If a roll call vote 
is taken and individuals voters know they will be questioned
> on why they 
would vote NO, I believe the outcome would uninimously in favor of
> the 
motion.
> 
> This motion represents very positive start to a 10 
Gigabit Ethernet standard. We
> then went on to exceed these figures by a 
large margin in the completed
> standard.
> 
> We all know we 
can do better than 100 m over MMF and 2-3 km on SMF.
> 
> I'm 
concerned that your strategy pits proponents of one signaling scheme 
against
> the other since each signaling scheme combined with a specific 
laser type,
> wavelegth and fiber type may be the only alternative that 
can achieve a
> particular distance. Furthermore, that scheme may be far 
from the most cost
> efficient scheme and may be the most expensive and 
conficting in nature with one
> of our key PAR 5 Criteria: Economic 
Feasibility.
> 
> --
> 
> Jonathan Thatcher 
wrote:
> 
> > All,
> >
> > It is actually a 
little more complicated than that (intentionally) and you
> > are both 
right. The goal is to first pass a motion on an objective using
> > 
some subportion that has a very high probability of success. After that, 
add
> > more contraversial sub-objectives. Add these in a way that all 
potential,
> > reasonable opportunities are represented. Start with the 
ones that are most
> > aggressive. Vote through these options until the 
group believes the right
> > level of challenge has been 
acheived.
> >
> > The potential problem is there may be people 
who think in terms of sour
> > grapes: "I couldn't have my lunatic 
fringe solution so I will try to spoil
> > the 
process-at-large."
> >
> > jonathan
> >
> > 
> -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter_Wang@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Peter_Wang@xxxxxxxx]
> > 
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 5:03 PM
> > > To: HANSON,DEL 
(HP-SanJose,ex1)
> > > Cc: 'HSSG Distance Ad Hoc'
> > > 
Subject: Re: Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call
> > 
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
Jonathan's original proposed process is as you re-iterated,
> > > at 
least that's how
> > > I understood it.  However, I thought 
Jonathan actually
> > > described the reverse
> > > 
process for the short reach distance options this morning,
> > > 
i.e. start with the
> > > least likely option and move toward the 
most likely.  It may
> > > facilitate ad hoc
> > > 
group meeting next Monday evening if we can agree on the
> > > 
process to over the
> > > reflector?
> > > 
-Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
>
> > > "HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)" <del_hanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
on
> > > 06/28/99 02:14:35
> > > PM
> > 
>
> > > Sent by:  "HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)" <del_hanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> >
> > >
> > > To:   "'HSSG Distance Ad 
Hoc'" <stds-802-3-hssg-distance@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> > cc:    (Peter Wang/HQ/3Com)
> > > 
Subject:  Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call
> > 
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
HSSG Distance Ad Hoc
> > >
> > > This is a brief summary 
of our conference call at 8 AM PST
> > > today (6-28-99)
> 
> > for those who did not participate. Listed below are the two
> 
> > levels of issues
> > > we discussed, as distributed 
previously by Jonathan. We need to frame
> > > motions around these 
issues which can pass the 7-5-99 Plenary
> > > by >75% 
vote.
> > > We agreed to implement Jonathan's strategy of making 
a
> > > sequence of motions;
> > > the top level of 
which should be eminently passable so that
> > > is a 
subsequent
> > > item fails, we are not left with nothing.
> 
> >    As expected, we did not reach unanimous conclusions 
on any
> > > of the line
> > > items. Based on reflector 
comments and our discussions today, I would
> > > recommend that in 
the interim that we each think about a
> > > proposal for a
> 
> > motion on these issues that has a likelihood of gaining >75% 
consensus
> > > rather than what might be our particular hot 
button.
> > >    Jonathan announced that the HSSG 
Distance Ad Hoc will have
> > > a meeting
> > > running 
from 8 PM to ? on Monday, 7-5-99, to review and frame
> > > these 
motions
> > > which we will present at the HSSG Wednesday AM 
meeting. See you there.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> 
> > Del
> > > 
---------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> Top Level Motion/Applications:
> > >
> > > 1. 
Support the traditional LAN environment.
> > >
> > > 2. 
Support the extended Ethernet environment as specified by
> > > 
1000BASE-LX
> > > link lengths and point-to-point links used in 
common practice
> > > to reach into
> > > the MAN 
environment.
> > >
> > > 3. Support direct attachment to 
the WAN infrastructure.
> > >
> > > 
---------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> Second Level Motion/Link Lenfth Cases:
> > >
> > > 
Possible link length alternatives:
> > >
> > > 1. 100 
meters over MMF (850 and 1300)
> > > 2. 300 meters over MMF (850? 
and 1300?)
> > > 3. 500 (550) meters over MMF (850? and 
1300?)
> > > 4. 3 km over SMF (1300)
> > > 5. 5 km over 
SMF (1300)
> > > 6. 10 km over SMF (1300)
> > > 7. 20-40 
km over SMF (1300)
> > > 8. 80-120 km over SMF (1500)
> > 
>
> > > To sort through these, I think we need to consider some 
of
> > > the "traditional"
> > > 
assumptions/arguments/positions that were used in Gigabit
> > > 
Ethernet when
> > > making decisions about fiber, wavelength, and 
distance:
> > >
> > > a. We should support the existing 
infrastructure (meaning the
> > > existing cable
> > > 
plants)
> > > b. We should minimize the number of PHY 
choices
> > > c. We should minimize the cost of 
implementation
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > 
>
> > >
> 
> --
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>