XAUI, SFF connectors
Roy,
As is usually the case, you always bring up interesting tangential
issues in your email. This time it's:
"Given the form factor that would use XAUI, SFF connectors would not be
a requirement."
What in the world does the XAUI interface, specified for use as an XGMII
extender, have to do with SFF connectors???
Please enlighten me.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I am not sure of your comment about LC having a proven track record for
> single mode implementations. At present, WorldCom has not deployed any
> LC. All of the connectors currently specified for SM installations is
> SC. A particular vendor is attempting to get WorldCom to make use of their
> connectors. ( I will not say how successful or not they are. ) Several
> system vendors are attempting to make use of LC, but at present, none have
> been certified. Given the form factor that would use XAUI, SFF connectors
> would not be a requirement.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 04:28 PM 7/21/00 -0600, Chris Simoneaux wrote:
>
> >Our opinion is that LC is a better connector than MTRJ. The LC does not
> >seem to suffer the possible damage that MTRJ can see with high mate/demate
> >cycles...due to the guide pin action. Also, the LC has a proven track
> >record for singlemode whereas the MTRJ does not.
> >
> >PS: My feeling is the standards body's charter should be to specify a
> >connector. However, there's too much rhetoric in the procedure. Therefore
> >it's difficult to choose the best solution. Inevitably the real winner/s
> >will come forward. Conclusion: Choose a connector at the standards level as
> >it can expose good points of each solution.
> >
> >Chris Simoneaux
> >Picolight
-------------------------------------------------------
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