Re: [802.3_RTPGE] Port naming...
Brad-
There is actually quite adequate precedent for the proposed naming
convention of 1000BASE-T1
(as for whether that particular name is a good idea is another
conversation)
The PHY specified in clause 23 was labeled 100BASE-T4 precisely
because it used 4 pair instead of the 2 pair used in 100BASE-TX
(by the way, the "x" in 100BASE-Tx was used because the PHY for
100BASE-Tx was externally specified, same for 100BASE-Fx)
The PHY specified in clause 32 was labeled 100BASE-T2 because it used
2 pair (of Cat 3) instead of the 4 pair of Cat 3 used in 100BASE-T4
The industry and our customers managed to not be confused by the
difference between Tx and T4.
T2 never actually made it to market.
The case for 10BASE-T and 10BASE-Te is quite different as they are
fully interchangeable on a 100 meter Cat 5 link segment.
Frankly, I am more worried about the potential label confusion between
1000BASE-T1 and legacy carrier TDM T1.
I think 1000BASE-Tv is a bad idea because of potential confusion with
network links (e.g. HDMI-BASE-T) used for television.
Best regards,
Geoff Thompson
On Jan 28, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Brad Booth wrote:
I was just considering the use of the term 1000BASE-T1 and thought
I'd share some observations.
There is no case of using a 1 at the end of the port name as the
number at the end only implied the number of lanes, number of
wavelengths or reach. The number 1 was never used as it generally
referred to a serial implementation (single lane or wavelength).
Unfortunately, with 1G on TP cabling, aka 1000BASE-T, the port
nomenclature applies to all four pair.
Could this create confusion in the industry? Would 1000BASE-T1 be
capable of the same reach as existing 1000BASE-T? 1000BASE-T2 would
probably be easier to explain because 100BASE-T2 (which follows the
above rules for the number) already exists.
What about doing what EEE did to 10BASE-T? It created a new
nomenclature for a new electrical interface specification and called
it 10BASE-Te (e for being more energy efficient due to lower voltage
requirements).
Would it be worth considering creating a nomenclature that portrays
accurately that this port type is different than 1000BASE-T? What
about 1000BASE-Ta (a for automotive) or 1000BASE-Tv (v for vehicular)?
Just my 2 cents,
Brad