RE: XAUI, SFF connectors
Roy,
No one has said that the form factor of 10 Gigbit Ethernet devices requires
that distance between a port and its transceiver. A major reason that we
need the distance is to support devices with many ports. For instance,
it is possible to build a switch chip serving 8 or more ports. If one needs
to connect 8 to 16 transceivers from a front panel to a single chip then
they can not all be within the distance reachable by XGMII. Also, the lower
pin count of XAUI is very useful in this situation.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: Re: XAUI, SFF connectors
Rich,
What need does an interface card have for SFF connectors that can only put
one optical port within a 13 inch copper etch radius? From what you and
others are making us believe, the form factor requirements for 10GbE are so
large that SFF connectors are a non-issue. If 10GbE interfaces are going
to be so dense that we will need SFF connectors, why did we need XAUI? I
can't see how you would need both.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 10:13 PM 7/23/00 -0700, Rich Taborek wrote:
>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