Re: Optical Connectors
Expanding upon the last point I'd suggest to use the Fibre Channel FC-PI
well documented F/O connector clause covering to the finest detail including
compliance with the National and International component and cabling
standards the SC and three of the SFF connectors. This would also address
our objective of compliance with the ISO 11801 and TIA/EIA-568 Premises
cabling standards. Schelto or Rich shall be able to provide the clause for
discussion if required.
Tad
----- Original Message -----
From: Gair Brown <gdbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jonathan Thatcher <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: HSSG_reflector (E-mail) <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: Optical Connectors
>
> As one member of the user community, I would like to go on the record
> that some form of standardization in the connector interface would be
> appreciated.
>
> Although IEEE did not partake in the "connector wars", they have been
> going on. At this point, there do appear to be some clear indications
> of what the winners will be, and what some of the losers are.
>
> I do not think that solely identifying the SC connector in the standard
> is a good option. Most likely most of the interfaces sold will not use
> the SC, they will use one of the SFF options.
>
> If some limited number of connector options were detailed in the
> standard, it would be of great benefit to the user community. At this
> point I would vote for the inclusion of three standard interfaces (the
> SC and two SFF versions). I think concensus could be reached in that
> regard.
>
> Gair
>
>
> ----Original Message----
>
> David,
>
> There is precedent for having two connector types in the standard (see
> 39.5.1 MDI = Style 1 (DB9) and Style 2 for GigE Cu)
>
> I doubt that putting a large number of connector types in the standard
> would be well received. But, two isn't exactly a large number.
>
> I don't see why interoperability should not be a question for two
> connector types any more than it would be for multiple port types; these
> wouldn't
> interoperate either.
>
> It certainly seems like another option.
>
> jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kabal [mailto:dkabal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 3:02 PM
> To: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Optical Connectors
>
> Jonathan:
>
> As an open question, what is the impact of having more than one
> optical connector specified in MDI of the 802.3 standard? Is this an
> interoperability
> question or can it be left flexible without adversely affecting the
> standard. Is this similar to the Power over DTE decision to define two
> different wiresets that
> could be used to "transmit power", and every receiver had to accept
> both, or is this a bogus analogy?
>
> Throwing my personal opinion into this:
> I can see near-term implementations in SC, moving to LC in the next
> year, so I would prefer to have a standard that specified only LC, and I
> would not be
> adverse, if it were possible, to include both connectors as
> "possible MDIs".
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
> -----
> David Kabal
> Photonics Engineer, OPTera Metro Solutions, Nortel Networks
> Phone: 613.270.5953 Fax: 613.591.2035
> e-mail: dkabal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Thatcher
> [mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 11:49 AM
> To: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
> Subject: Optical Connectors
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Naval Surface Warfare Center
> browngd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Code B35 PH: 540-653-1579
> 17320 Dahlgren Road FAX: 540-653-8673
> Building 1500 Room 110A
> Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100
>