RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
Bruce:
I'm not certain the entire group sees the 300 m objective in the same way.
Since the 300 m is not installed fiber it can be argued that it is not an
objective for a high percent of installed fiber runs. The committee decided
to address only 100 m installed fiber. SAN applications might require runs
longer than 100 m and therefore may be well served by 300 m.
I don't want to argue in favor of parallel ribbon for SAN applications.
Though parallel ribbon will be used for rack jumpers a single fiber
solution is a much more desirable long term answer for SANs. I believe we
should not standardize parallel ribbon, especially at 300 m, however a 300
m serial MMF solution for SANs does seem appealing.
Cheers,
Paul
At 04:25 PM 7/27/2000 -0700, Bruce Tolley wrote:
>Paul and Brad:
>
>I do not think the 300 meter objective was written with computer rooms in
>mind. It was written with building and campus backbones in mind.
>
>This was the context of the discussion within the distance ad hoc leading
>up to the York meeting.
>
>My recollection from the York meeting is that we started discussing an
>objective for 300 meters on installed fiber and ended up with consensus
>on objective that omitted the word "installed. "
>
>At the time, it seemed to me to be a compromise between those who wanted
>to support the installed base with 1300 WWDM and those who wanted to
>support 850 serial PMDs on new MM fiber. Both sets of voters were
>thinking in terms of building and campus backbones. The distance value of
>300 meters itself has always been justified on the basis that it covers
>some substantial percentage of the installed base of building and campus
>backbones.
>
>Yours
>
>Bruce
>
>At 02:35 PM 7/27/00 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>
>>Paul,
>>
>>Thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected. The parallel optics and
>>parallel fiber could be applied to the 300m over MMF objective. Although it
>>does meet that objective, the previous emails were targeting parallel
>>optics/fiber for the 100m application, and I should have probably qualified
>>my statement with that.
>>
>>If it is only going to meet the 300m over MMF objective (and from Pat
>>Gilliland's presentation, only on new high bandwidth MMF), then I have the
>>same problem with this solution as I do with the 850nm Serial PMD solution.
>>They may both be the lowest cost today, but they don't satisfy the 100m over
>>installed MMF objective. Considering we have two PMDs that are under
>>consideration to meet both the 100m over installed MMF and 300m over MMF
>>objectives, I believe it would be in the Task Force's best interest to focus
>>on those solutions. That is just my humble opinion.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Brad
>>
>>Brad Booth
>>Intel LAN Access Division, Austin Design Center
>>bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx>
>>(512) 407-2135 office
>>(512) 589-4438 cellular
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Bottorff [mailto:pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 3:34 PM
>> To: Booth, Bradley; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel
>>Optics.
>>
>> Brad:
>>
>> I also understand our objectives in the same way. We don't
>>have an
>> objective for 100 m computer room connections. It seems to
>>me the 300 m
>> objective was written for computer rooms. The 300 m over MMF
>>could be
>> applied to any fiber solution.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> At 12:55 PM 7/27/2000 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>>
>> >Ali,
>> >
>> > From my understanding of the objectives, the task force
>>doesn't have a
>> >distance objective of "100m data center applications." We
>>do have an
>> >objective for 100m over installed MMF fiber. That 100m
>>distance objective
>> >was chosen because it reflects what is used in the data
>>center applications.
>> >If the task force satisfies the objective (which is a
>>requirement for the
>> >task force to do), then we provide a solution for the
>>application. The
>> >reverse is not true. If task force satisfies the
>>application, then we don't
>> >meet our objectives.
>> >
>> >Given that the task force has to satisfy objectives first
>>and foremost, I
>> >believe that it is key that the task force focus on those
>>proposals that in
>> >some manner satisfy an objective. As I see it, parallel
>>optics and parallel
>> >fiber do not satisfy any of our objectives; therefore, the
>>task force needs
>> >to work on the ones that will satisfy our objectives.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Brad
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: ghiasi
>>[mailto:Ali.Ghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 2:17 PM
>> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx;
>>bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx
>> > Cc: Ali.Ghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Subject: RE: Equalization and
>>benefits of Parallel
>> >Optics.
>> >
>> > Brad
>> >
>> > > From: "Booth, Bradley"
>><bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>> > > Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits
>>of Parallel Optics.
>> > > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:29:56 -0700
>> > > 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
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I have one question:
>> > >
>> > > Which of our distance objectives is
>>satisfied with
>> >parallel fiber and
>> > > parallel optics?
>> >
>> > The 100 m data center applications.
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > You are correct parallel optics would not
>>operate over an
>> >installed two fiber
>> > plant. Parallel optics would loose if you
>>go in to an
>> >installed fiber base.
>> > What I suggested was 100m data center
>>applications, where
>> >the fiber are not
>> > installed in the building wiring.
>> >
>> > Data center application are very
>>significant as stated in
>> >the last meeting
>> > about half the total market. Solutions
>>significantly lower
>> >cost targeted
>> > for sub 100 m is needed, otherwise there
>>will several
>> >proprietary solutions.
>> > Parallel optics is the lowest cost, almost
>>mature after 3
>> >years, lowest power,
>> > and smallest foot print. Parallel optics
>>is ideal to get
>> >bandwidth off the
>> > edge of your board.
>> >
>> > Serial 850 or CWDM 850 can be another
>>candidate for low cost
>> >data center
>> > applications by having cable advantage
>>over parallell fiber.
>> >But you need
>> > to offset fiber advantage against power,
>>size, cost,
>> >testing, and maturity.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Or am I missing the point here?
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Brad
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Ali Ghiasi
>> > Sun Microsystems
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> Paul A. Bottorff, Director Switching Architecture
>> Enterprise Solutions Technology Center
>> Nortel Networks, Inc.
>> 4401 Great America Parkway
>> Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
>> Tel: 408 495 3365 Fax: 408 495 1299 ESN: 265 3365
>> email: pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul A. Bottorff, Director Switching Architecture
Enterprise Solutions Technology Center
Nortel Networks, Inc.
4401 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
Tel: 408 495 3365 Fax: 408 495 1299 ESN: 265 3365
email: pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx