Fwd: RE: PMD discussion
>Paul, Pat, and all
>
>FC, Infiniband, and the OIF are all working on short reach.
>
>I think 10 GbE customers will have a need for connections of 20 to 50 meters.
>
>Because such links can be accomplished with interfaces being defined and
>specified by other standards bodies, the IEEE 802.3ae task force has no
>need to alter its objectives to meet this requirement.
>
>Bruce
>
>
>
>At 12:34 PM 6/2/00 -0400, Kolesar, Paul F (Paul) wrote:
>
>>Pat,
>>I am unclear as to what is meant by VSR. 802.3ae has two short reach
>>objectives, 100 and 300 m. In your view, is VSR space not covered by these?
>>Or is VSR sub-100m to you? Either way, I don't see the point of the
>>discussion unless it is aimed at changing the objectives.
>>Paul
>> ----------
>> From: Patrick Gilliland [SMTP:pgilliland@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:34 PM
>> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: PMD discussion
>>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Brad is suggesting, among other things, the VSR
>> solutions such as 850nm might be best addressed
>> in a different standard.
>>
>> I believe Rich Taborek has suggested the same and
>> is soliciting proposals for the Fibre Channel PMD
>> working group. Probably the natural place for this
>> work might be a different forum. Otherwise, we must
>> ask the entire membership to reexamine the objectives.
>>
>> I see no future in delaying the standard by maintaining
>> an 850nm voting block. If the membership does not want
>> to standardize VSR applications within 802.3, let's take
>> it to a different forum where it is of primary interest.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pat Gilliland
>> patgil@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> At 06:17 PM 6/1/00 -0400, you wrote:
>> >
>> >Brad,
>> >
>> >There are no PMDs in the set of 5 that do not meet at least one of
>>the
>> >objectives. As far as the 850 nm serial PMD, I believe I made a
>>strong case
>> >at the May interim as to why it also broadly meets the criteria.
>>80% of the
>> >market for 10GbE will be under 300 m. A solution optimized for this
>>large a
>> >portion of the market has broad market application regardless of
>>the number
>> >of distance objectives it covers.
>> >
>> >To your point on a small subset getting 100% majority, the
>>indication of the
>> >straw poll from the May interim is that down selecting below 5 PMDs
>>this is
>> >going in the wrong direction to achieve consensus. The poll
>>indicated that
>> >the 5 PMD set was favored by roughly 2 to 1 compared to the closest
>> >alternative of 3 PMDs. Further, I believe that the 3 PMDs are not
>>the same 3
>> >among the supporters of that choice, which subdivides the support.
>> From my
>> >perspective an inclusive approach will work better than an
>>exclusive
>> >approach in getting to consensus. In an inclusive approach you get
>>the PMDs
>> >you prefer, while others also get the PMDs they prefer. If you
>>really
>> >believe the market will be best served by some subset of the PMDs,
>>you are
>> >free to use only those.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Paul Kolesar
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: Booth, Bradley [SMTP:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 5:19 PM
>> > To: '802.3ae'
>> > Subject: RE: PMD discussion
>> >
>> >
>> > Paul,
>> >
>> > You touched on a key point. To quote you, "The norm is
>>likely a
>> >choice
>> > between a small subset that is targeted for their needs." I
>>see
>> >this as
>> > applying directly to what we need to work on. If there is
>>something
>> > available from another standards body (i.e. VSR VCSELs),
>>then I
>> >would prefer
>> > to leave that effort in that standards body especially if it
>>doesn't
>> >broadly
>> > satisfy our criteria. I think there is a small subset that
>>the IEEE
>> >needs
>> > to standardize that we (I'm talking 100% majority) believe
>>we should
>> >focus
>> > our effort on to meet our objectives while providing a small
>>subset
>> >to
>> > satisfy our customer's needs.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Brad
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Kolesar, Paul F (Paul)
>> >[mailto:pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 4:06 PM
>> > To: '802.3ae'; 'Booth, Bradley'
>> > Subject: RE: PMD discussion
>> >
>> > Brad,
>> >
>> > 802.3z not only supported the installed base
>>of 62.5
>> >um
>> > fiber (which has two
>> > bandwidth grades), but also included 50 um
>>fiber in
>> >two
>> > grades. These are a
>> > 400 MHz-km grade (representing the worst
>>installed
>> >base
>> > grade of 50 um) and
>> > a newer 500 MHz-km grade that allowed the SX
>> >solution to
>> > meet the 550 m
>> > distance objective. I don't think customers
>>have had
>> >a
>> > difficult time
>> > getting GbE technologies to work in this
>>situation.
>> >But we
>> > are sensitive to
>> > this issue. So recognizing the need to
>>distinguish
>> >new MMF
>> > from old, Lucent
>> > has made the new fiber easily identifiable.
>>New MMF
>> >cable
>> > and patch panels
>> > are distinctly color coded to distinguish
>>them from
>> >other
>> > fiber types.
>> >
>> > I cannot predict the percentage of new
>>versus old
>> >fiber,
>> > since I don't have
>> > a crystal ball. But I believe it will be a
>> >significant
>> > amount with
>> > conversion accelerating as other fiber
>>suppliers
>> >come on
>> > line. Lucent
>> > already shipped hundreds of kilometers of
>>new MMF
>> >and we are
>> > still ramping
>> > up production. Also, I believe that
>>deployment will
>> >tend to
>> > occur most
>> > rapidly in those customer sites that intend
>>to use
>> >10GbE
>> > equipment in the
>> > near term. So the absolute percentage
>>conversion is
>> >not the
>> > key indicator to
>> > monitor, but rather the conversion occurring
>>in
>> >10GbE
>> > customers sites.
>> >
>> > When I look at the 10 port types, I see them
>>serving
>> >several
>> > types of
>> > customers. I believe that it will be a rare
>>customer
>> >that
>> > must make a choice
>> > between all 10 types. The norm is likely a
>>choice
>> >between a
>> > small subset
>> > that is targeted for their needs. While most
>>of the
>> >choices
>> > will not apply
>> > for any one customer, all of the choices
>>have their
>> >purpose
>> > in serving the
>> > entire customer base. Let's not loose site
>>of the
>> >fact that
>> > 802.3 is
>> > entering new market spaces. These new spaces
>>are
>> >embodied in
>> > the 10 and 40
>> > km distance objectives that far exceed the
>>scope of
>> >building
>> > cabling (the
>> > scope of Ethernet up to now), and PHY
>>objectives
>> >which
>> > address both LAN and
>> > WAN. Larger and more diverse market spaces
>>will
>> >naturally
>> > need a greater
>> > variety of solutions.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Paul Kolesar
>> >
>> >
>> >