RE: Nomenclature update
I could probably live with something relatively close to that. I do have an
issue with using 4 because is it suppose to define 4 parallel fibers or 4
wavelengths. If you use the examples you gave, it should refer to 4
parallel fibers.
It was also requested during the Interim meeting that we keep the order from
the bottom of the layer diagram up. This would result in a nomenclature
such as ...BASE-S4X. For the Serial implementation, we could use -SX, and
for the WDM implementation, we could SMX. Although, S4X may not be a bad
idea for adding more wavelengths in the future.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Seto, Koichiro [mailto:seto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 10:49 PM
To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Nomenclature update
[Date: 05/30/2000 From Seto]
Hello again,
Here is another theory. Let me see if this works.
In 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-SX, 1000BASE-LX and so on, we assume
serial as
default. We don't call 100BASE-FX as 100BASE-FX1 or
100BASE-TX as
100BASE-TX1, even though we call 100BASE-T4 as 100BASE-T4
and 100BASE-T2
as 100BASE-T2. As long as the transmission scheme is
serial, we don't
need another letter to distinguish serial as serial.
According to this theory, we may be able to name 10GBASE-xxx
as follow:
850nm Serial LAN 10GBASE-SX
1310nm Serial LAN 10GBASE-LX
1550nm Serial LAN 10GBASE-EX
850nm WWDM LAN 10GBASE-SX4
1310nm WWDM LAN 10GBASE-LX4
850nm Serial WAN 10GBASE-SW
1310nm Serial WAN 10GBASE-LW
1550nm Serial WAN 10GBASE-EW
850nm WWDM WAN 10GBASE-SW4
1310nm WWDM WAN 10GBASE-LW4
I know there is a flaw in my new theory. According to this
theory,
1000BASE-T should have been called '1000BASE-T4'. ;-)
In any event, I think the naming of an Ethernet standard has
been very much
market oriented. Usually, the names come first and the
reasons follow.
Seto