RE: XAUI, SFF connectors
Pat,
You are the first person to come up with any reasonable explanation for the
need of etch extension. I am still contending that it is an vendor
implementation issue, not a standards issue and should never have been part
of this task force. As a customer, I am incensed that I will be paying for
XAUI technology development, even on systems that will have no use for it.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 04:38 AM 7/25/00 -0600, pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>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