Re: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical fiber cable
Chris,
After looking at the distance objectives, and reading the reflector messages on the issue of 100m 850nm PMD, is there anything that
you believe is missing? I participated in the distance ad hoc last year and the market for a very short reach PMD did not receive
much comment. My memory may be faulty, but believe that most of the emphasis was on distances that reflected the existing paradigm
in GbE which had just been completed. I am making a "leap" here in that I believe that you think that there may need to be a change
in the paradigm. I believe I understand you to say that unlike the paradigm that GbE was developed under, there is a major
potential market for very short reach (VSR) optics for 10GbE. Am I correct?
If you believe that a paradigm shift is needed, will you be presenting anything next week?
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Simoneaux" <csimoneaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Edward Chang" <edward.chang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Roy Bynum" <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical fiber cable
>
> Jay,
>
> I am not arguing that anyone has done a poor job at anything. That's a
> severe misinterpretation of my point. All I'm saying is that we should
> support the industry with the most cost effective solution. And from my
> perspective, we should identify where the potential 10GE links exist. If
> you can come up with such a survey/matrix, I'd love to see it. I believe
> they may exist in the telecom industry, but for the most part are
> proprietary to the company doing the survey.
>
> Also, I never mentioned anything about multiplying PMDs. Again, all I said
> was that the IEEE should choose the most cost effective solution(s). If,
> from all the data we have, we find that your list of PMD's stands by
> themselves, then so be it. However, there is a large group (including
> myself) that would dispute that.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:59 AM
> To: Chris Simoneaux
> Cc: Edward Chang; Roy Bynum; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical fiber cable
>
>
>
>
> Chris,
>
> One of the initial requirements in the creation of a standard is the
> definition of objectives. I think we did a very good job of that in 10GBE.
> As has been pointed out before, these discussions are a reprise of the ones
> we had when we originally defined the objectives. Someone needing a generic
> 10GB link can find it in one of the PMD's meeting the objectives we've
> defined. I think we now risk violating Occam's Razor; multiplying PMD's
> beyond necessity.
>
> Jay
>