Re: Optical Connectors
Jonathan,
In spite of what Lucent wants, the LC connector does not have the market
support that MTRJ does. MTRJ also has a smaller form factor than does
LC. I don't like and am specifying the non-use of LC on transmission gear
because of the fragile "lock" tab that is on the connector.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 08:48 AM 7/18/00 -0700, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>I have opened this thread to continue the discussion on optical
>connectors. So far (what has come into my reader), we have the following
>comments:
>
>-----------------------
>"Bill Wiedemann: Regarding 850CWDM we are planning to make first
>implementations with duplex SC moving to LC with small form factors. Our
>expectation is that small form factor with LC could be available a year
>from today. "
>-----------------------
>"Jim Tatum: I would assume that 802.3ae would do the same as 802.3z, and
>NOT specify conectors. "
>-----------------------
>"Ed Chang: There are so many different form factors, and connectors, which
>even the GbE and Fibre Channel market can not get consensus."
>-----------------------
>
>If we review the 802.3 Ethernet specification, we see that we have
>identified connectors for each variant (I don't remember an exception).
>For example:
>7.6.2 AUI Configuration cable
>9.9.5.2 Optical for repeaters
>...
>38.11.3 MDI = Duplex SC for GigE Optics
>39.5.1 MDI = Style 1 (DB9) and Style 2 for GigE Cu
>
>While I remember no rules that require us to do so, it seems obvious that
>there exists a precedent which should guide our decision.
>
>In 802.3z, we specifically took a vote to avoid connector discussions
>("connector wars")**. We could do the same in 802.3ae. If we did, I would
>argue that we would, effectively, be retaining the duplex SC optical
>connector specified in clause 38.
>
>My PERSONAL preference would be to specify the LC connector. Rationale:
>1. There seems to be an overall inclination to move in that direction.
>2. It sets the stage for some kind of "Small Form Factor" 10 Gig transceiver.
>3. I don't think that it would negatively impact the cost of the
>transceiver in the 2002 (standard completion time frame).
>
>As CHAIR, I don't want to use up any cycles on this. If there isn't
>sufficient consensus to agree on an alternative to the SC, we should just
>adopt the SC and move on.
>
>jonathan
>
>** In reality, this was bumped up to 802.3 because neither I (sub-chair
>for PMD) nor Howard (802.3z chair) wanted to use precious committee time
>for the discussion.
>
>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
>