RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical fiber cable
Chris,
Thank you for the clarification.
jonathan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Simoneaux [mailto:csimoneaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 10:43 AM
>To: 'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'
>Subject: RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical
>fiber cable
>
>
>
>Jonathan, et al.,
>
>Clarification:
>1. Picolight is not proposing a VSR only solution.
>2. Picolight is not proposing to change any 10GbE objectives.
>3. We are supporting the 300m MMF objective with an 850 serial
>solution.
>
>Comment:
>The transceiver for the 300m MMF 850nm serial solution can be
>used in short
>distance applications using commercially available fiber. We
>think it best
>serves the industry to communicate this message. That's the
>extent of my
>message. My apologies if this message has been misinterpreted.
>
>Chris
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Thatcher
>[mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 9:54 AM
>To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical
>fiber cable
>
>
>
>Okay, let's play ball.
>
>Chris,
>
>One implication/interpretation in/from your note is that
>Picolight will be
>proposing a VSR (Very Short Reach) solution which does not
>support any of
>the current objectives of the IEEE P802.3ae Task Force.
>
>Now, I realize that "Very Short" to one person is not "Very Short" to
>another.
>
>This is you opportunity to clarify.
>
>jonathan
>
>Jonathan Thatcher,
>Chair, IEEE 802.3ae (10 Gigabit Ethernet)
>Principal Engineer, World Wide Packets
>PO BOX 141719, Suite B; 12720 E. Nora, Spokane, WA 99214
>509-242-9000 X228; Fax 509-242-9001; jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Chris Simoneaux [mailto:csimoneaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:38 PM
>>To: 'Roy Bynum'
>>Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>>Subject: RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical
>>fiber cable
>>
>>
>>
>>Roy,
>>Yes, your "leap" appears to be accurate. We feel that there
>>is a large,
>>important space, i.e. VSR, which could benefit from 850nm
>>serial. I was not
>>participating in GbE during the development stage. So I can't
>>comment on
>>whether I'm bucking the basis for which GbE was developed
>>under. But, as
>>the cost ratio of GbE LX/SX was sufficient to justify the SX
>product, a
>>similar ratio is expected for 10Gb WWDM/850 Serial.
>>
>>Picolight will be presenting at the Ottawa meeting in support of my
>>submissions.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 5:38 PM
>>To: Chris Simoneaux
>>Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>>Subject: 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
>>>
>>
>