Re: Optical Connectors
Rich,
I agree with the second part from Tad, as I outlined when I suggested we refer to
other standards groups. But the first part I disagree with. Had we known back
then that SFF components would be so popular, I don't believe the SC would be
listed, or the only one listed. I reckon my question was "is there a solution
today that beter suits us then the SC?" I just don't buy the arguement "If it
ain't broke, don't fix it" for this case. I really thing we should be looking at
the SFF packaging right off the bat.
Take care
Joel
----------------------
Rich Taborek wrote:
> Joel,
>
> The flip side is that the SC has worked for Gigabit Ethernet just fine
> and multiple SFF connectors are being used in GbE equipment anyway. Once
> again: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>
> If this isn't good enough, I suggest that a second best alternative is
> to specify the SC and also do as Tad Szostak of 3M suggests in his note
> on this thread:
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02933.html. In
> that note, Tad suggests cross referencing other standards such as:
> ISO/IEC WG3 11801 - International Premises Cabling Standard
>
> "2-nd edition of the 11801 draft standard scheduled for completion first
> quarter of 2001 specifies at the TO duplex SC only. It allows use of the
> SFF (Small Form Factor) connectors anywhere else for as long as: a) they
> are standardized by the IEC 86B and b) are of the RJ-45 outline at the
> TO.
>
> At the bottom of my list would be to "hear more from the fiber suppliers
> and the components people on this issue regarding their thoughts on pros
> and cons of a particular connector or specification system." This, in
> essence, is a connector war. Been there many time, done that many times.
> It's extremely counter productive to a standards process.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> --
>
> Joel Goergen wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I thought about this for a few days, and I am not sure we should adopt the SC
> > for 10gigE ( and I know .... no one is specifically saying we should). Other
> > connector options are more attractive to higher port count systems that are
> > robust. It won't be long, based on past experience, when we will have large
> > port count 10gigE systems. I feel we should start with a connector that
> > makes sense to use, as I believe others have been saying, at least some of
> > the others on this thread.
> >
> > I would like to hear more from the fiber suppliers and the components people
> > on this issue regarding their thoughts on pros and cons of a particular
> > connector or specification system. I would rather not just refer to some
> > other standards group for the connector type. I just feel we should pick one
> > and reference a standards group, too. It seemed to work well in 802.3z.
> >
> > Take care
> > Joel
> > -------------------
> >
> > Howard Frazier wrote:
> >
> > > I love free food, and the optical component manufacturers always put on
> > > a nice spread.
> > >
> > > What's so bad about connector wars, anyway? Connector wars have gotten
> > > a bad rap because they have been bungled so badly by inept standards
> > > committees. Consider what we did in 802.3z:
> > >
> > > 0) We adopted the SC and the DB-9 as the baseline connectors for 802.3z
> > > in November, 1996 in Vancouver.
> > > CUT HERE
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
> Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
> nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
> 2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com
--
Joel Goergen
Force10 Networks
1440 McCarthy blvd
Milpitas, Ca, 95035
Email: joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direct: (408) 571-3694
Cell: (612) 670-5930
Fax: (408) 571-3550