Re: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
Jonathan,
We need to address both the ambiguity in the fiber type and the application
distances.
At this point we need simplicity.
Three step process:
1. Simply state the fiber type definitions.
2. Simply state the application space and associated distance objectives.
3. Apply the fiber type definitions to the application distances.
I offered a simple unambiguous definition for the fiber type independent of
distance assumptions.
In order to close on (3.) we need to address the ambiguity in the
application space
distances.
At this point, I believe,
- We have agreement (supported by survey data and standards references)
that 300 meters is a reasonable upper-bound on expected In-building
premise
cabling application distances.
What is missing:
1. Agreement on the applicability of the 100 meter distance objective.
The 100 meter objective is historically linked to the overall objective of
supporting ethernet over 100 meters of horizontal cabling i.e., supporting
the ISO/IEC 11801 horizontal cabling distance.
2. Appropriate distances for the data center, central office and
equipment room (equipment room cabling distances are available).
What next:
- We need to clearly establish that the "historical" 100 meter objective
still applies to the 10 Gb/s Ethernet in-building application space.
- We need agreement on the 10 Gb/s In-building application space in order to
establish distance targets. I believe we have clearly addressed premise
cabling
distances i.e., horizontal and backbone cabling distance.
- We need to clearly identify the appropriate distances for the data center,
central office
and equipment room (equipment room cabling distances are available).
Regards,
Chris Di Minico
Cable Design Technologies (CDT) Corporation
Director of Network Systems Technology
Phone: 800-422-9961 ext:333
e-mail: cd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Thatcher <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
>
> Rich,
>
> My interpretation is that "MMF" indeed means installed or new, as
indicated.
> This is clearly defendable.
>
> Defining "installed MMF" to be the same as 802.3z fiber is still
ambiguous.
> It has two potential meanings:
> 1. All MMF fibers referenced in 802.3z will run to 100 meters.
> 2. At least one MMF fiber referenced in 802.3z will run to 100 meters.
>
> My interpretation here is that "1." was intended, not "2." In short, that
> "installed MMF" included an assumption that 100 meters would be achieved
on
> "160 MHz*km:, 62.5 micron (FDDI-grade) fiber.
>
> jonathan
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:25 PM
> >To: HSSG
> >Subject: 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.h
> >tml. 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
> >
>