Re: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
Paul,
As I pointed out in e-mail to Jonathan, for completeness, we need to simply
state all of the relevant application spaces and associated distances in
order
to address the applicability of the current set of distance objectives.
Although the ISO/IEC 11801-1995-07-15 provides a recommendations for
equipment cable lengths, the distance is implementation specific i.e.,
equipment
cable is a cable connecting equipment to a distributor (such, as patch
panels..etc).
- ISO/IEC 11801 equipment cable - equipment cables is a cable
connecting equipment to a distributor (such, as patch panels..etc).
+++Length - It is strongly recommended that the lengths of the equipment
cable used in the building distributor (BD) or campus distributor (CD) be
less than 30 meters in length.
Please Note:- Equipment cable lengths are application specific and their
length should be
identified in the context of their usage.
To move the general debate on the application-spaces distance-objectives
further,
I offer that the HSSG has at least four distinct 10 Gb/s application spaces.
++++The four distinct 10 Gb/s application spaces.
1. Generic cabling for customer premises- ISO/IEC- ISO/IEC 11801 -
2. Data Center-
3. Central Office
4. Equipment Room
I have challenged myself to provide the HSSG substantive information on the
cabling lengths associated with each distinct 10 Gb/s application space. The
customer
premise cabling lengths are complete (by survey and reference); the rest is
in progress.
Input from Roy Bynum, Mike Bennet and Corey McCormick have been invaluable.
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: Kolesar, Paul F (Paul) <pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
>
> Roy,
>
> If you are in possession of real equipment room distance distribution
data,
> please bring it forward. I am asking Chris Diminico to do the same. With
> this data we can determine if the present 100 m objective is appropriate
or
> should be modified.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Kolesar
>
> ----------
> From: Roy Bynum [SMTP:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 9:32 AM
> To: Kolesar, Paul F (Paul); stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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
> > >
>