RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.

["McCormick, Corey" <Corey@xxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.

I also may be a bit confused.  From a business perspective I have this view.

My reason for wanting a 10G interface over MMF is primarily cost and simplicity.  Most of the servers I have installed are within 100M and most of the core and distribution switches are as well.  If there is a low-cost way to use some new-fangled media, then fine, but it seems to me that improving ASIC technologies and economies of scale are the primary downward factors in interface technologies.

If the MMF limit is 100M or less then the pain incurred for me installing new MMF is relatively minor, as the distance is not that large.  This means the number of labor-intensive obstacles encountered will be small.  It is work and cost to be sure, but if the runs were for 200-500M+ then the labor costs would be *much* higher.  However, I believe the costs for the tooling, cables, certification gear and connectors will increase if we choose some new radically different technology as the only choice.  In our experience the SFF connectors are not significantly less in overall cost.  (there are exceptions, but for the majority of them the costs are quite similar to ST/SC)  We still have *much* more difficulty with the SFF installations due to primarily lack of available cables, field termination components, and conversion cables.  Also, there is the major problem of field Zip<->Dual fiber MM adaptation to our installed ST/SC infrastructure (yuk!).

I really do not care which technology is selected/specified, but for the short-haul standard my primary goal is lowest overall cost for the total installation.  (Labor, connectors, tools, patch cables, test equipment, Laser/LED transceivers, etc...)  I care very little about which form factor, mostly the cost and ease of use.

If such relatively simple Net things as the broken 10/100 Autoneg Phy and LX mode adaptation/conditioning cables are such a problem in the wide acceptance of new technologies, then it seems like the KISS principle should be a strong factor.  I do not care how complicated it is internally, but it needs to be simple for the end user.

I also seems to remember that the goal was 3X the cost of 1G.  If the cable length limits are going to be <100M, then the real-world-end-user-makes-the-comparison will be with 1000Base-TX copper, not SX.  This might make it much more difficult to complete the 3X cost target unless there are *significant* savings in the Phy/Xceiver/cable/connector/tools area.

My engineering hat does not always agree with this, but then it is business that pays the bills.

What do you good folks think?

Corey McCormick
CITGO Petroleum

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Booth, Bradley [mailto:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Wednesday, July 26, 2000 8:30 PM
To:     stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.

I have one question:

Which of our distance objectives is satisfied with parallel fiber and
parallel optics?

It has been my interpretation that when we talked about 100m of installed
base of MMF, that we were referring to the MMF fiber currently available for
use by 802.3z.  Parallel optics does not operate over this installed base.

Or am I missing the point here?

Cheers,
Brad

        -----Original Message-----
        From:   ghiasi [SMTP:Ali.Ghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxx]
        Sent:   Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:32 PM
        To:     stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; Daljeet_Mundae@xxxxxxxxx;
hakimi@xxxxxxxxxx
        Cc:     Ali.Ghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject:        RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.

        Sharam

        > From: "Hakimi, Sharam (Sharam)" <hakimi@xxxxxxxxxx>
        > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx, "'Daljeet_Mundae@xxxxxxxxx'"
        <Daljeet_Mundae@xxxxxxxxx>
        > Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
        > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:04:49 -0400
        > MIME-Version: 1.0
        > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients
<stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        > X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
        > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to  majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        > X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        >
        >
        > Although parallel fiber is technically an easier solution, the
major reason
        > for support of 850nm has been to consider the installed base, and
cost. If
        > users have to pull new fiber, IMHO, parallel fiber would not be on
top of
        > the list and most of installed base is single fiber.

        I did not suggest to pull any new fiber.  Limit the shortwave
variant
        including parallel optics to the data center with 100 m radius.

        Thanks,

        Ali Ghiasi
        Sun Microsytems

        >
        > Sharam Hakimi
        > Lucent Technologies
        >