Re[2]: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
Ed,
I agree that it is possible the length can go longer than the standard has
specified on 62.5um at 1300nm in many cases. However, we need to be careful with
our assumptions. For example, are you assuming that both offset patchcord and
WDM to be used at the same time? That is a guaranteed to be expensive and a lots
of hassle for the field tech.
Hailing Zhong
Lucent Technologies
Member of Technical Staff
hzhong@xxxxxxxxxx
508-347-8654
____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: Re: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
Author: <NetWorthTK@xxxxxxx>
Date: 4/12/00 9:43 PM
Dear Giorgio:
How did you get 280 meter to make shortage of 20 meter out of 300 meter
total, then claim it is failure. I do not believe the actual optical link
design can be that simplified. The real optical link does not behave as a
step function, rather a gradual change.
The fiber distance is very complex trade off among fiber effective bandwidth,
transmitter rise time, receiver bandwidth, bit error rate, and power.
Even the new fiber cannot guarantee without DMD problem which will change the
performance.
Regards,
Ed Chang
<< agree with you the Gigabit Ethernet model has been proven to be robust
and I congratulate with the work that has been done.
Based on a straightforward extension of that model, a 3.125 Gb/s link at
1.3um
can go approximately 280 m on installed MMF (62.5um 500MHz km).
This is below the objective of 300 m and does not consider additional
potential impairments introduced by the WDM process.
>>
Received: from ihrh2.emsr.lucent.com [135.1.218.64] by spectran.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.30.00.7)
; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:19:24 -0400
Return-Path: <owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Received: from hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com by ihrh2.emsr.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 Solaris/emsr)
id WAA09656; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:17:59 -0500
Received: from hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19194
for <hzhong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3])
by hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19186
for <hzhong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28274; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:44:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: NetWorthTK@xxxxxxx
Message-ID: <43.34facad.26268025@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:43:01 EDT
Subject: Re: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
To: giorgio@xxxxxxxxxx, david_cunningham@xxxxxxxxxxx
CC: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx, stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 100
Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx