Re: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
Roy,
I believe that Chris Diminico did an excellent job of clarifying the two
MMF objectives in his recent note to this reflector:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg03164.html. That
note provides the following clarifications:
Installed MMF – MMF as referenced in 802.3z
MMF – Either installed MMF or the Next Generation MMF fiber
specifications
There have been no objections to Chris's clarification. I fully support
these clarifications. I don't understand the purpose of any discussion
regarding exactly "how" the objectives were worded the way they are. The
fact is that the wording stands unless a change is agree to by 75% of
802.3 voters.
Any objections?
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> In the discussions about what could be achieved and what the various known
> applications were, based on the traditional use of Ethernet, the question
> was raise about whether MMF could support 10GbE. There was even the
> question of installed fiber and the issue of older "gofer bait" MMF
> fiber. I could be wrong, but my perception is that one of the fiber
> company people stated that the older MMF should be able to support 10Gb for
> the lateral 100m traditional lengths, and the traditional riser or 300m
> could be supported by the newer MMF. The word "installed" was inserted in
> the motion proposal only, it was not agreed on by the people of the Ad Hoc.
> At the time that the 300m motion that included the word "installed" was put
> before the group, I remember thinking that this was not what was agreed on
> by the distance Ad Hoc, and of course it was very quickly corrected. What
> was left ambiguous was that the words "new multi-mode fiber" was trimmed to
> be only "multi-mode fiber". At least that is the way that I remember it.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 11:09 AM 8/2/00 -0600, Chris Simoneaux wrote:
>
> >Roy,
> >I would curious to know who made/implied promises of 850nm serial
> >implementation @ 10Gbps over 100m of installed fiber.
> >
> >My understanding (and I wasn't part of the meetings when the objectives were
> >developed, so correct me if I'm wrong) was that there was little or no
> >representation from the 850 serial PMD guys.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Chris
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 7:37 AM
> >To: Paul Bottorff; Booth, Bradley; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
> >
> >
> >
> >Paul,
> >
> >As part of the distance Ad Hoc, I was under the impression that the 300m
> >objective was for new technology MMF in the building risers. The Ad Hoc
> >was told that 100m over "installed" MMF was feasable at a symbol rate of
> >over 10Gb, equivalent to the proposed 850nm serial PMD. Were we
> >mislead? I don't know. As a customer participating in this process and
> >going back to looking at the most likely areas of initial implementation
> >and the implementation practices, I am the more serious about holding the
> >people that said that they could do the serial 850nm PMD to their implied
> >promise.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum
> >
> >
> >At 01:33 PM 7/27/00 -0700, Paul Bottorff wrote:
> >
> > >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
-------------------------------------------------------
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