RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
Paul,
If I thought that a 75% agreement could be achieved on making such a change
in the objectives, I would whole-heartedly support it. Is there anything I
can do to help?
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 06:26 PM 8/4/00 -0400, Kolesar, Paul F (Paul) wrote:
>Roy and Bruce,
>
>If there were any such preliminary claims made for 850 serial regarding its
>capability to 100 m on the installed base, (and I do not recall any) it
>would have had to have been with the understanding that the "installed base"
>contained 500 MHz-km 50 um fibers. Using 500 MHz-km bandwidth in the link
>model results in distances approaching, but short of, 100 m.
>
>I do not believe that the 100 m objective was chosen because of any such
>claims. As I have stated before, I believe the 100 m objective was chosen
>because we though that some reasonable solution would be able to achieve
>this objective, not necessarily 850 nm Serial.
>
>Now upon further examination of the rationale behind that objective, we
>find it is rather empty. It neither protects a significant customer
>investment, nor necessarily addresses a particular distance need tied to an
>application space where 10GbE is expected to be deployed.
>
>As such it is probably better to replace it with a more meaningful
>objective, one that addresses the needs of the equipment room. To develop a
>better objective for the equipment room, we will need data on distance
>distributions. Today we heard from Chris Diminico that equipment room
>distance distribution data is available. I suggest examining it and setting
>up the appropriate objective around this data.
>
>Paul
>
>
> ----------
> From: Bruce Tolley [SMTP:btolley@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 3:56 PM
> To: Roy Bynum; Paul Bottorff; Booth, Bradley;
>stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
>
>
> Roy:
>
> I agree in part. My recollection is that according to statements
>made in
> the ad hocs and during the York meeting one year ago, the 850 nm
>proponents
> thought they could obtain distances100 meters over installed, low
>bandwidth
> MM fiber. I do not recall any promises being made and I do not think
>any
> were implied since at that time almost all the work was very
>preliminary.
>
> Bruce
>
> At 08:37 AM 8/2/00 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> >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
> >>
> >>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
> >