| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I read the results optimistically 37.5% supports the option of · “Up to at least 100m on Cat 6 and Up to 100m on Cat 5e”. Is 37.5% enough for approveal or we need over 50% or 66.3% ? Yakov Belopolsky Manager R&D Stewart Connector | a beL group tel direct: 717-227-7837 , reception: 717-235-7512 email: ybelopolsky@xxxxxxxxxxx 11118 Susquehanna Trail South Glen Rock PA 17327 USA stewartconnector.com From: Peter Jones (petejone) [mailto:petejone@xxxxxxxxx] Brad, I hear you. I was being a “glass half full” because I am a supporter of a 5G Cat 5e objective. The straw poll tells me I have a lot of work to do to make the case and build consensus. During next week we will have presentations on the current size of the Cat 5e installed base, and what rate its moving to cat 6/6a, and I know people are preparing the technical feasibility presentations. Let’s see what happens in the group during next week. Regards Peter _______________________________________________ Peter Jones Cisco Systems Principal Engineer 3600 Cisco Way Campus Switching S/W San Jose, CA, 95134 USA Tel: +1 408 525 6952 Fax: +1 408 527 4698 Email: petejone at cisco.com Twitter: @petergjones _______________________________________________ From: Brad Booth [mailto:bbooth@xxxxxxxx] I'd read it as there isn't sufficient support to even consider a 5G Cat 5e objective. As a side note, when I did an additional to my former home about 7 years ago, the installer only offered Cat 6 for the data lines. While there is probably an installed base of Cat 5e, making the 5G PHY more complicated (and power hungry) to use an existing infrastructure - that would need to be tested anyways - would probably cost more than to just pull new cabling. :-) Cheers, Brad On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Peter Jones (petejone) <petejone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Folks, Sorry for the delay, but here is the result of the December Survey Monkey Straw Poll for 5G over Cat5e objective language
My reading of this? We don’t have 75% on any of the options, but those interested in a 5G over Cat5e objective have lots of work to do. Regards Peter _______________________________________________ Peter Jones Cisco Systems Principal Engineer 3600 Cisco Way Campus Switching S/W San Jose, CA, 95134 USA Tel: +1 408 525 6952 Fax: +1 408 527 4698 Email: petejone at cisco.com Twitter: @petergjones _______________________________________________ From: Peter Jones (petejone) Hi Folks, As discussed in the AdHoc teleconference today, your esteemed chair and I would like to keep making progress in firming up objectives. To get this project moving fast, we really need to get our objectives nailed in the Interim in January, and that’s not very far away. We want to get a sense of where the group is in relation to what is (almost certainly) our most controversial potential objective “What objective text should we use to address support for 5Gb/s on four-pair Class D (Cat5e)?" (see slide 4 in the deck at this link) We will use “Survey Monkey” for this (thanks to Mark Nowell for this idea), and I’ve set up a poll as “Chicago Rules” (vote for all options that make sense to you). The poll is at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/X99DC8N I would like to encourage everyone to read the material at the adhoc web page (link) and also the CFI deck (link), and then give us your best response based on where you are right now. The straw poll (link) asks the following (and thanks to George Zimmerman for providing some nice explanatory text). 1. This is a straw poll to get the sense of the group on the question "What objective text should we use to address support for 5Gb/s on four-pair Class D (Cat5e)? ". · “No Opinion" , This feels like an abstain, or maybe "not enough information to form an opinion yet". · "None, should not be an objective or no objective needed” : This means we retain the proposed objective for support of 5G over Cat 6/Class E (with the appropriate augmentation), but don’t add anything mentioning Cat5e/Class D. If a Class D link segment meets the requirements, it would still be supported, but Cat5e/Class D would not be explicitly mentioned in the objectives for the 5Gbps rate. · “Up to at least 100m on Cat 6 and Up to 100m on Cat 5e”: This means that we retain the proposed Cat 6/Class E objective, with specifications that support 100m E (with the appropriate augmentation), and add to it, an explicit reference for Cat5e/Class D support, but with a less aggressive posture – “Up to 100m” means the group may not reach the full 100m, and it is on a best-effort basis, but some distance would be supported. · “Up to at least 100m on Cat 5e”: In this case we would delete the proposed objective for support of 5G over Cat 6/Class E, relying on the backwards compatibility of cabling (Cat 6 links meet or exceed all Cat5e requirements). Links from minimum length to 4 connector channels of 100m over Cat5e would be supported at the 5Gbps rate (with appropriate augmentation) at least in those configurations covered by the ‘augmentation’. I plan to leave this survey open until the end of Sunday 12/22/14 (AOE). I will then tally the results and report back to the group. Regards Peter Peter Jones NGEABT Study Group Architecture Ad Hoc Chair | ||||||||||||||