Re: Optical Connectors
[Date: 07/20/2000 From Seto]
Joel,
Do you think we can totally ban SC for 10GbE if we adopt a SFF connector into the
standard? If not, I would suggest we first standardize one and only SC and later
add an "optional" SFF connector, let connector guys do their work while we
concentrate on this standard. In my opinion, two connectors confuse market and
delays adoption.
The below is my perception:
- more than one connectors stds: 100BASE-FX and 1000BASE-CX, ... winners?
- one connector stds: 10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-SX, .... clear winners!!
Seto
p.s. I don't know the meaning of "peeshaw". Can anyone tell me?
> 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
>
>
>