Re: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
Rich,
You are entirely correct bout the issue of 75% to make any changes at this
late date. And I am in no way taking issue with what Chris Diminico
said. What I was hoping to express was the concept that the 300m objective
as I understood it never specifically included "installed" or "legacy"
fiber. From what I understood, the only distance objective that
specifically included "installed" or "legacy" fiber was the 100m
objective. The reason that the 100m distance was at 100m was because of
the "tradition" of 802.3. The ISO cabling specifications referenced by
802.3z and in the York motion were based on the original technical
limitations of copper based 10mb Ethernet, not fiber base Ethernet. As
Geoff Thompson just stated in
http://www.ieee802.org/3/10G_study/email/msg03199.html, if we are no longer
bound by the tradition of "100m" because the technology does not apply,
then we are able to define other specifications that are more appropriate
to the technology and the market.
As an executive from a large network service provider recently stated to me
in reference to the applications of the new Ethernet technology, "We are
not in Kansas any more". The traditional, comfortable, ways of at looking
at the way Ethernet is deployed can be a handicap. By re-evaluating how
Ethernet CAN be deployed based on customer requirements and technology
possibilities, P802.3ae can become even more THE "global" data link level
protocol. One of the basic distinctions is that the TF needs to be
listening to the customers and asking the customers what they need instead
of continuing to try to tell the customer what they are going to get. If
the TF fails to do that, then IEEE will lose control of the Ethernet
standard. This has already partially happened at ITU SG7 and in the case
of "jumbo frames".
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 09:25 PM 8/2/00 -0700, Rich Taborek wrote:
>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