EMI and XGBIC
From an earlier thread, Rick Walker wrote;
> Dear Ed,
>
> > Ed Grivna <elg@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > I think you missed Joe's point. He makes reference to a 1-mm hole.
> > that is the size hole you would have if you routed only the
> > bare fiber through the hole. This implies usage of a buried
> > module, or a module with a fiber pigtail. In either case, the
> > fiber is routed through a metal plate, significantly removed from
> > the LASER diode and driver. The plate is generally constructed as
> > a buried wall in the chassis, with a second bulkhead used to mount
> > connectors.
>
> I don't think I missed the point. I was attempting to show that this
> extremely cumbersome technique is not widely used in
> low-cost systems.
> Most low-cost modules are not pigtailed. They have a front-panel
> connectors. In this environment, it is much more difficult
> to properly
> shield things.
>
> Are you suggesting that we should require a very expensive, telecom
> style of construction for low-cost 10GbE ports? Remember that many
> systems may be built in metallized plastic packages with front-panel
> mounted non-pigtailed modules.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Rick Walker
Perhaps one way of reducing this EMI problem and providing a mechanism
for swapping media types flexibly would be an XGBIC solution?
I am thinking that the XAUI or a similar interface on one side, and a
fiber coming out the other end (attached INSIDE) the module and then a
screw-tight or bulkhead locking mechanism that allows only the fiber to
extend out of the box might make things easier for everyone.
Rather than let it be a "Defacto" standard, why not standardize it
(as the IEEE has done with MII, AUI and other exposed interfaces)
and then the system designers can move forward as the PHY solutions
gel?
Just thought I would throw some gasoline into this already hot
subject. :)
Dan Dove
HP ProCurve Networks