| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I hate to "pass the buck", but isn't this the type of issue that the
10GEA could push?
It would seem if 802.3ae makes any attempt to standardize connectors,
that it would
result in another "connector war". Particularly in light of the
fact that .3ae is creating
a standard for both LAN and WAN applications. 802.3z had a tough
enough time just
for the LAN standard. I'd say just adopt the existing connector
and move on.
Steve
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 cable9.9.5.2 Optical for repeaters...38.11.3 MDI = Duplex SC for GigE Optics39.5.1 MDI = Style 1 (DB9) and Style 2 for GigE CuWhile 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
begin:vcard n:Augusta;Steve tel;fax:978-623-0055 tel;work:978-247-8032 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:www.amcc.com org:<image src = "http://www.amcc.com/images/Samcclogo.gif"> adr:;;200 Brickstone Square;Andover;MA;01810;USA version:2.1 email;internet:saugusta@xxxxxxxx title:Systems Development Manager x-mozilla-cpt:;3408 fn:Steve Augusta end:vcard