RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
Jonathan,
My original email summarized the situation for 1300 nm WWDM pretty
succinctly, and I'm not sure why there should be any confusion at this
point. Also, I still haven't received an unambiguous answer to my
question regarding the ability of a single 850 nm CWDM design to service
both 100 meters on installed 62.5 um MMF and > 550 meters on the new
enhanced BW 50 um MMF, so I can't do the matrix for 850 CWDM. I can
re-state the points I made for 1300 nm WWDM in matrix form, and perhaps
Eric or someone from the 850 nm CWDM group can do it for that PMD.
Dave Dolfi
Agilent Technologies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mon Aug 7 10:59:23 PDT 2000
> Return-Path: <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Received: from msgbas1tx.cos.agilent.com (msgbas1t.cos.agilent.com
[130.29.152.59])
by aldolfi.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs
Workstation) with ESMTP id KAA21493
for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:59:23 -0700
(PDT)
> Received: from mercury.dev.webiness.net (unknown [63.88.119.44])
by msgbas1tx.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E5C105
for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:59:21 -0600
(MDT)
> Message-ID: <6987538FE5E0D3119F1B0050DA7350D112FA42@MERCURY>
> From: Jonathan Thatcher <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: "'Lemoff, Brian'" <brian_lemoff@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Dave Dolfi (E-mail)" <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Paul Kolesar (E-mail)" <pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:45:27 -0700
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Length: 19434
> Status: RO
>
> Paul, Dave, Brian (et. al.),
>
> This has been an enlightening "discussion" (no pun intended).
>
> Would someone be willing to compile the information into a matrix format so
> that we can
> 1) agree to the assumptions and implications and
> 2) allow the group at large to have a simple reference chart to show the
> combinations and relative distances
>
> [WDM; Serial] X [850; 1310] X [62.5; 50; New 50] X [OFL; RML**] X [802.3z
> Patch Cord; or Not]
>
> **hopefully this means only one RML specification!
>
> If you think this sounds tough, imagine what it is like for the majority of
> the committee to keep this all straight.
>
> jonathan
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Lemoff, Brian [mailto:brian_lemoff@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 5:52 PM
> >To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> >
> >
> >
> >Eric,
> >
> >I need to clarify a couple of points that you made which are somewhat
> >misleading:
> >
> >1. "There is never a patch-cord required for 850 CWDM" You
> >state this as
> >if it is an advantage with respect to 1300-nm WWDM!!
> >To meet the 802.3ae objectives as stated, there is no patch
> >cord required
> >for 1300-nm WWDM either. This was the point of Dave's
> >original e-mail. The
> >only time you need a patch cord is if you want to achieve 300-m on
> >DMD-challenged 62.5-micron fiber, something which is
> >completely impossible
> >using 850 CWDM.
> >
> >2. "... the 1300nm lasers and multiplexer have a higher cost
> >than those
> >required for 850nm CWDM" Yes, the 1300-nm edge emitters are
> >somewhat higher
> >cost than 850-nm VCSELs, but the multiplexer we use for
> >1300-nm WWDM is not
> >any more expensive than that used for 850-nm CWDM. In fact it is less
> >expensive.
> >
> >I will be personally very surprised if the cost differential
> >between 850-nm
> >CWDM and 1300-nm WWDM is anywhere close to some of the
> >estimates that I have
> >seen presented by many 850-nm advocates on this reflector and at the
> >meetings. 1300-nm WWDM is a low-cost solution which will
> >satisfy ALL the
> >multimode and single-mode objectives, from 100m up to 10km, including
> >support for 300m over the installed base of 62.5-micron fiber.
> >
> >
> >Brian Lemoff
> >
> >***********************************************************************
> >Brian E. Lemoff, Ph.D.
> >Project Manager
> >LAN/MAN Optical Technologies
> >Agilent Laboratories
> >3500 Deer Creek Rd., MS 26M-9
> >Palo Alto, CA 94304-1392
> >
> >phone: (650) 485-8957
> >FAX: (650) 485-3626
> >email: brian_lemoff@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >***********************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Eric Grann [mailto:grann@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:20 PM
> >> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave,
> >>
> >> I would like to make it clear that 850nm CWDM does not
> >> require any special
> >> launches to achieve the 100m (installed) and the 300m (MMF)
> >> objectives. Per
> >> Paul Kolesar's previous email, an overfilled launch on new
> >> multi-mode fiber
> >> results in a minimum bandwidth of 500MHz.km, which equates to
> >> 300m for 850nm
> >> CWDM. Installed 50 micron fiber also has a minimum bandwidth
> >> of 500MHz.km,
> >> which equates to 300m for 850nm CWDM.
> >>
> >> As you indicated, 850nm CWDM has a lower cost than the 1300nm
> >> WWDM. In
> >> addition to the tolerance differences you mentioned, the
> >> 1300nm lasers and
> >> multiplexer have a higher cost than those required for 850nm
> >> CWDM. Lastly,
> >> there is never a patch cord required for 850nm CWDM.
> >>
> >> In summary, 850nm CWDM is a multi-mode optimized solution for
> >> the 100m and
> >> 300m objectives.
> >>
> >> Eric Grann
> >> Blaze Network Products
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dave Dolfi 3764
> >> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 12:21 PM
> >> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> Cc: dave_dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Paul,
> >>
> >> I had a feeling I'd hear from you on this, and you didn't disappoint
> >> me! Thank you for your detailed response. You seem to be saying
> >> two things. First, you describe what is basically a doughnut shaped
> >> launch which will both satisfy the launch requirement for the
> >> new fiber
> >> to achieve greater than its OFL bandwidth, and at the same time,
> >> guarantee that the OFL bandwidth is achieved on the installed base
> >> of 62.5 um MMF. However, you also seem to be saying that it doesn't
> >> matter anyway, since ANY launch will achieve the OFL bandwidth on the
> >> 62.5 um installed base. (I assume that you are only referring to SX,
> >> since if it were true for LX as well we wouldn't need patch cords).
> >>
> >> With respect to your first statement, I would reply that the launch
> >> you describe can certainly be classified as a "conditioned" launch.
> >> I don't think it could easily be achieved with multiple sources,
> >> at least not with the kind of simple multiplexers which have been
> >> proposed by companies such as Blaze and Agilent. I also question
> >> whether the tolerances required by such a launch would allow the
> >> loose, multimode type tolerances which the 850 nm CWDM advocates have
> >> claimed for this PMD, and which form the basis of their claim of
> >> lower cost relative to 1300 nm WWDM. If this launch is really
> >> necessary for 850 nm CWDM to work, then these questions need to
> >> be addressed.
> >>
> >> With respect to your second statement, I would refer you to the work
> >> that was done by Agilent (HP at the time) during the DMD studies of
> >> 802.3z, particularly the presentation to 802.3z by Lewis Aronson at
> >> the March, 1998 meeting of 802.3z (available at the following URL:
> >> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/z/public/presentations/).
> >> There are measurements presented there on both 62.5 um and 50 um
> >> MMF at short wavelength. I'm not in a position to challenge your
> >> assertion regarding the absence of launch restrictions at short
> >> wavelength (you're the expert here!) but I would appreciate it if
> >> you look over this paper and verify that the results presented are
> >> consistent with your statement.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave Dolfi
> >> Agilent Technologies
> >>
> >>
> >> > From owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx Fri Aug 4 09:14:56 PDT 2000
> >> > Return-Path: <owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> >> > Received: from unicorn.labs.agilent.com (unicorn.labs.agilent.com
> >> [130.29.252.5])
> >> by aldolfi.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3
> >> AgilentLabs
> >> Workstation) with ESMTP id JAA19492
> >> for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 4 Aug 2000
> >> 09:14:56 -0700
> >> (PDT)
> >> > Received: from alexed.labs.agilent.com (alexed.labs.agilent.com
> >> [130.29.252.59])
> >> by unicorn.labs.agilent.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/Agilent Labs
> >> Mail Hub v 01.00
> >> 2000/06/20) with SMTP id e74GEtj28086
> >> for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 4 Aug 2000
> >> 09:14:55 -0700
> >> (PDT)
> >> > Received: from 130.29.252.5 by alexed.labs.agilent.com
> >> (InterScan E-Mail
> >> VirusWall NT); Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:14:55 -0700 (Pacific
> >Daylight Time)
> >> > Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com
> >> [15.255.168.31])
> >> by unicorn.labs.agilent.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/Agilent Labs
> >> Mail Hub v 01.00
> >> 2000/06/20) with ESMTP id e74GErv28067;
> >> Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com (hplms2.hpl.hp.com [15.0.152.33])
> >> by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay)
> >> with ESMTP id
> >> JAA28307;
> >> Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com
> >> [15.255.168.31])
> >> by hplms2.hpl.hp.com (8.10.2/8.10.2 HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id
> >> e74GEpA06527;
> >> Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3])
> >> by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay)
> >> with ESMTP id
> >> JAA28302;
> >> Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28587;
> >> Fri, 4 Aug 2000
> >> 11:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
> >> > Message-ID:
> >> <4490F7068AC0D111A7120008C72878EC04E6CBA6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> cent.com>
> >> > From: "Kolesar, Paul F (Paul)" <pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >> > Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> >> > Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:42:30 -0400
> >> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >> > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
> >> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> >> charset="iso-8859-1"
> >> > Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >> > Precedence: bulk
> >> > 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
> >> > Content-Length: 9199
> >> > Status: RO
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dave Dolfi,
> >> >
> >> > I would like to address your concerns over launch conditions.
> >> >
> >> > The launch requirement for the new 50 um fiber is presently
> >> specified as
> >> >=
> >> > 85% encircled flux within a 16 um radius of the center of
> >> the fiber. This
> >> is
> >> > not much different than the launch requirement determined
> >> to be optimal
> >> for
> >> > enhanced 62.5 um fiber which is <= 25% encircled flux
> >> within 4.5 um radius
> >> > and >= 75% within 15 um radius of the center of the fiber. The main
> >> > difference is that the 62.5 um spec limits the amount of
> >> power allowed in
> >> > the very center of the fiber (within 4.5 um radius) while
> >> the 50 um spec
> >> has
> >> > no such limitation. But, the similarity of the outer radii
> >> specification
> >> > (85% within 16 um vs 75% within 15 um) permits solutions
> >> that meet both
> >> > requirements simultaneously. In short, the overall power
> >> concentration in
> >> > the center of the 50 um fiber is not required to be much
> >> different than
> >> that
> >> > for enhanced 62.5 fiber.
> >> >
> >> > Further, the TIA FO2.2 data indicates launches that meet the above
> >> > requirements for enhanced 62.5 um fibers do not cause
> >> degradation of the
> >> > bandwidth below the OFL specification on installed-base
> >> 62.5 um fibers. In
> >> > fact, such launches usually cause bandwidth enhancement. By
> >> combining
> >> these
> >> > launches with 62.5 um fibers tested and determined to
> >produce higher
> >> > restricted launch bandwidth, we can guarantee enhanced performance.
> >> Perhaps
> >> > even more to the point, the data collected by both the TIA
> >> and IEEE on
> >> this
> >> > subject has not shown any launch condition that caused the
> >> bandwidth to
> >> > collapse below the 160 MHz-km OFL spec for 62.5 um fiber.
> >> This includes
> >> > launches produced by single-transverse mode "CD" lasers as well as
> >> > multi-transverse mode VCSELs with various spot sizes and numerical
> >> > apertures. It also includes Radial Overfilled Launches that
> >> were developed
> >> > as a possible test launch condition by the IEEE MBI study
> >> group, which are
> >> > said to extract the "worst case" modal bandwidth for any
> >> laser launch. In
> >> > summary, there is no evidence of any launch condition that
> >> causes less
> >> than
> >> > 160 MHz-km bandwidth from the installed base of 62.5 um
> >> fiber. The 100 m
> >> > capability of the 850 CWDM PMD is based on 160 MHz-km bandwidths.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Paul Kolesar
> >> >
> >> > ----------
> >> > From: Dave Dolfi 3764 [SMTP:dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:17 PM
> >> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; billw@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Cc: dave_dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dear Bill,
> >> >
> >> > I'm happy that you agree with my summary of the patch cord
> >> > situation.
> >> > Unfortulately, I'm not sure that I agree with
> >> everything you seem
> >> > to be saying about 850 nm CWDM. Specifically, while I
> >> agree that
> >> > you could specify a VCSEL and a mux design which would
> >> achieve 100
> >> > meters on the installed 62.5 um MMF OR > 550 meters on the new
> >> > enhanced
> >> > bandwidth 50 um MMF, I'm not sure that a single design
> >> could achieve
> >> >
> >> > both at the same time.
> >> >
> >> > The 62.5 um conventional fiber requires a large spot at
> >> its input to
> >> > mitigate potential DMD problems if too much of the
> >> excitation is in
> >> > the central portion of the fiber, while the new fiber requires a
> >> > small spot centered at its input in order to satisfy
> >> the encircled
> >> > flux
> >> > requirement necessary to achieve the higher bandwidth. Can you
> >> > really
> >> > achieve both of these at the same time?
> >> >
> >> > I think you need to prove that this is true before you
> >> can claim to
> >> > simultaneously achieve the bandwidths you are claiming over both
> >> > fiber
> >> > types.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dave Dolfi
> >> > Agilent Technologies
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > From owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx Thu Aug 3
> >> 11:18:07 PDT 2000
> >> > > Return-Path: <owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> >> > > Received: from unicorn.labs.agilent.com
> >> (unicorn.labs.agilent.com
> >> > [130.29.252.5])
> >> > by aldolfi.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3
> >> > AgilentLabs
> >> > Workstation) with ESMTP id LAA18859
> >> > for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 3 Aug 2000
> >> > 11:18:07 -0700
> >> > (PDT)
> >> > > Received: from alex1.labs.agilent.com (alex1.labs.agilent.com
> >> > [130.29.252.55])
> >> > by unicorn.labs.agilent.com
> >> (8.10.2/8.10.2/Agilent Labs Mail
> >> > Hub v 01.00
> >> > 2000/06/20) with SMTP id e73II6c16414
> >> > for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 3 Aug 2000
> >> > 11:18:06 -0700
> >> > (PDT)
> >> > > Received: from 130.29.252.5 by alex1.labs.agilent.com
> >> (InterScan
> >> > E-Mail
> >> > VirusWall NT); Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:15:34 -0700 (Pacific Daylight
> >> > Time)
> >> > > Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com
> >> > [15.255.168.31])
> >> > by unicorn.labs.agilent.com
> >> (8.10.2/8.10.2/Agilent Labs Mail
> >> > Hub v 01.00
> >> > 2000/06/20) with ESMTP id e73II5x16406;
> >> > Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > > Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com (hplms2.hpl.hp.com
> >> [15.0.152.33])
> >> > by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3
> >> (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with
> >> > ESMTP id
> >> > LAA15401;
> >> > Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > > Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com
> >> > [15.255.168.31])
> >> > by hplms2.hpl.hp.com (8.10.2/8.10.2 HPL-PA Hub)
> >> with ESMTP
> >> > id
> >> > e73II2e24872;
> >> > Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > > Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org
> >> [199.172.136.3])
> >> > by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3
> >> (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with
> >> > ESMTP id
> >> > LAA15314;
> >> > Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > > Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id
> >> NAA03725; Thu, 3
> >> > Aug 2000
> >> > 13:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
> >> > > Reply-To: <billw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > From: "Bill Wiedemann" <billw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > To: <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> >> > > Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> >> > > Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:38:21 -0700
> >> > > Message-ID: <A0DC08D4103BD411A9DC009027B0B6350E8130@MAIL>
> >> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >> > > Content-Type: text/plain;
> >> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> >> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >> > > X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> >> > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> >> > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
> >> > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> >> > > In-Reply-To: <A0DC08D4103BD411A9DC009027B0B63514345C@MAIL>
> >> > > Importance: Normal
> >> > > Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >> > > Precedence: bulk
> >> > > 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
> >> > > Content-Length: 2823
> >> > > Status: RO
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thank You.
> >> > > Everything you say is correct. 850CWDM has been designed to
> >> > directly meet
> >> > > the 100 meter objective over installed (DMD
> >> challenged) 62.5u MMF
> >> > and the
> >> > > 300m objective over MMF. In addition we can meet 300
> >> meters over
> >> > existing
> >> > > 50 micron fiber and greater than 550 meters with the new high
> >> > bandwidth MMF.
> >> > >
> >> > > Finally experimental evidence has shown greater than 300 meter
> >> > performance
> >> > > over installed 62.5 micron fiber that is not DMD challenged.
> >> > >
> >> > > Bill Wiedemann
> >> > > Blaze
> >> > > 925-560-1610 x169
> >> > >
> >> > > At 02:11 PM 8/2/00 -0700, David W Dolfi wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >Everyone,
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >There seems to have been some confusion at the La Jolla
> >> > > >meeting over the necessity for an offset patch cord for
> >> > > >1300 nm WWDM. Because of this, and additional comments
> >> > > >made on the reflector since the meeting, I am writing
> >> > > >this email to clarify the situation.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Fact 1. An offset patch cord is NOT required for 1300 nm
> >> > > >WWDM in order to meet the current MMF objectives of 802.3ae.
> >> > > >That is to say, it is NOT required in order to achieve a 100
> >> > > >meter link length on the installed base (this includes both
> >> > > >62.5 and 50 um standard MMF, which both have a 500 MHz-km OFL
> >> > > >bandwidth length product at 1300 nm), NOR is it requred to
> >> > > >achieve a 300 meter link length on the new enhanced BW
> >> > > >MMF, which also has a 500 MHz-km OFL bandwidth at 1300 nm.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Needless to say (but I will for the sake of completeness)
> >> > > >1300 nm WWDM also supports single mode fiber up to 10 km,
> >> > > >again without a patch cord.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Fact 2. The ONLY time you need to use a patch cord with
> >> > > >1300 nm WWDM is if:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >1. You want to extend the link length of the MMF
> >> installed base
> >> > > >to 300 meters
> >> > > >
> >> > > >AND IN ADDITION TO THIS
> >> > > >
> >> > > >2. The fiber in question is "DMD challenged".
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Please note that if you are in this particular
> >> situation, none
> >> > > >of the 850 nm based PMDs will satisfy your need,
> >> patch cord or
> >> > > >not (but see Note below). Your only alternative in this
> >> > situation,
> >> > > >with an 850 nm PMD, is to install new fiber, either
> >> the enhanced
> >> > BW
> >> > > >multimode fiber or single mode fiber. Therefore,
> >> the notion that
> >> > > >the patch cord is some sort of "penalty" you pay for
> >> using 1300
> >> > nm
> >> > > >WWDM is really the wrong way to think about it.
> >> Rather than a
> >> > > >shortcoming, it is actually a benefit, since it gives you the
> >> > (rel-
> >> > > >atively speaking) low cost option of using a patch
> >> cord in a sit-
> >> > > >uation where your only other alternative is to pull
> >> new fiber.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Note: The 850 nm 4 channel CWDM PMD will allow you a
> >> 300 meter
> >> > link
> >> > > >length, without a patch cord, on the installed base of 50 um
> >> > fiber
> >> > > >ONLY. However, this is a small benefit, since the
> >> great majority
> >> > > >of the MMF installed base is 62.5 um fiber, on which
> >> 850 nm CWDM
> >> > > >will only support a 100 meter link length (due to
> >> the fact that
> >> > > >62.5 um fiber has an OFL bandwidth length product of only 160
> >> > > >MHz-km at 850 nm).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >David Dolfi
> >> > > >Agilent Technologies
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>