RE: PAM5 Objectives
Rich,
I agree. In my mind, system vendor support is essential to PAM5 going
forward.
Regards,
Pat
N. Patrick Kelly
Engineering Manager
Strategic Silicon Labs
Level One Communications, an Intel Company
(916)854-2955
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Taborek [SMTP:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 5:23 PM
To: PAM
Subject: Re: PAM5 Objectives
Pat,
I missed one very comment on your draft objectives that your
response to Jaime
reminded me of. During the conference call, someone (Jim Tavacoli?)
pointed out
that PAM SIG (PIG?) members should be taking these objectives to 10
GbE
equipment vendors and solicit feedback as to whether they would buy
a product
(transceiver module) based on these objectives rather than a 10 GbE
standard
compliant Serial or WWDM product.
What I suggest is that prior to going for a separate PAR in July, we
should pass
the objectives past 10 GbE equipment vendors.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
"Kelly, Pat" wrote:
>
> Jaime,
>
> See my comments below.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pat
>
> N. Patrick Kelly
> Engineering Manager
> Strategic Silicon Labs
> Level One Communications, an Intel Company
> (916)854-2955
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaime Kardontchik
[SMTP:kardontchik.jaime@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 9:55 AM
> To: 'stds-802-3-hssg-pam@xxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: PAM5 Objectives
>
> Pat,
>
> There is not such shared objective of "the PAM-5 group" to
> abandon the 802.3ae Task Force and promote the formation
> of another PAR and Task Force.
>
> I may have overstated the purpose of the objectives.
However, given
> the data presented by Rich in yesterday's conference call, it
seems clear to
> me that a PAM5 solution remaining part of 802.3ae after July is a
long-shot.
> If this is true, then we should be preparing now for the
likelihood that the
> only way PAM5 is going to continue is with a separate PAR.
>
> There are people within the PAM-5 proponents, mainly
> those identified with the "PAM-5 serial at 5 Gbaud" ,
> that understand that their proposal is very incomplete,
> has serious question marks on it and will not meet the
> tight schedule of the 802.3ae. Some of them has also
> expressed second thoughts about whether to stay with
> 1300 nm (to keep their promise of reaching 500 meters
> on the installed MMF) or switch to 850 nm lasers to
> be cheaper (in which case their maximum reach, according
> to their presentations would be only 160 meters, after
> all the pre- and post-equalization schemes).
>
> The proponents of the "850nm-4WDM-1.25 Gbaud"
> proposal plan to stay in the 802.3ae and meet the schedule
> of the 802.3ae.
>
> The 802.3ae decided in its last meeting in Albuquerque
> that the decision of which proposals will be included
within
> the "7 lucky proposals" will be taken only in the July
2000
> meeting. Till then, all the proposals on the Table,
including
> the PAM-5 proposals, are equally valid and will be
considered
> and discussed by the 802.3ae.
>
> Agreed, but July is not very far away and there is little
support
> for PAM5 in the committee. The PAM5 group either needs to
increase the
> amount of support dramatically, decide on asking for a separate
PAR, or pack
> our bags and go home.
>
> I would suggest to avoid in the future sending to the
> IEEE Reflectors these type of "resolutions" and
> "communications" that can only confuse the Task Force
> members at large, and keep the contents of the IEEE
802.3ae
> Reflectors technical and in sync with the objectives of
the 802.3ae.
>
> I heard no dissent yesterday when I received the AR to put
together
> a first cut of the objectives for the group and send it out on the
PAM5
> reflector. Obviously, communication regarding the PAM5 objectives
is valid
> on the PAM5 reflector. However, you may have a valid point
regarding my
> assumption that the objectives were specifically geared towards
application
> for a separate PAR. I withdraw that assumption for now, but I ask
that the
> first item on the agenda for the next conference call be direction
of the
> group, i.e. continue in ae, separate PAR, or go home.
>
> Jaime
>
> Jaime E .Kardontchik
> Micro Linear
> San Jose, CA 95131
>
> "Kelly, Pat" wrote:
>
> > All:
> >
> > Below is a first cut of the objectives intended for use
in
> justification of
> > a PAM5 PAR. I tried to simplify the list from the
Albuquerque
> meeting to
> > sharpen our message.
> >
> > - Provides significantly lower cost over proposed
installed
> base
> > solutions
> > - <1/2 of the cost of proposed WWDM solutions
> > - support for up to 300m of installed 62.5um MMF
> > - Prototypes demonstrated by 802.3ae sponsor
ballot
> > - Allows scalability to 40gig using WWDM (then
80/100gig?)
> > - XAUI compatible
> > - Form factor supports high port-count
implementations
> >
> > I look forward to everyone's comments.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > N. Patrick Kelly
> > Engineering Manager
> > Strategic Silicon Labs
> > Level One Communications, an Intel Company
> > (916)854-2955
-------------------------------------------------------
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