| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
The discussion is focusing now on 1Gbit/s. That is just a small part of the issue, the rest is unfortunately neglected. Till now, there are a lot of applications for single pair Ethernet, but all are islands serving specific markets without considering that there are other markets that could be served with a more general approach.
None of them are suited in building communication and automation, where 100m links had been the incredible success story in the past. For this huge market scalable and autosensing equipment’s are needed including remote powering. In this market precabling is essential and the speed of the communication does not need to be known in advance. The 100m links are specified and nearly ready in ISO/IEC 11801-1 amendment1 including IEC cables and connectors.
The title of the study group is: Enhancements to Point-to-Point Single Pair Ethernet, and the proposal to have an addition to the 100 Mb/s industrial to develop a 100m link like in 802.3 cg with the major requests:
- Define a link segment and Phy to support 10 / 100 and 1000 Mbit/s:
- At least 100m link segment
- Support auto negotiation
- Support remote powering, auto negotiation optional with 10BASE-T if in conflict with remote powering.
- Do not preclude future higher bit rate developments.
Argument against this proposal(Statement/Answer):
1) 1000Mbit/s is not needed:
a) As no explanation was given it is irrelevant.
2) The link should be better prepared:
a) As it is the purpose of the proposal to develop the link, this is not understood.
3) It would be better to do this part as a next step.
a) This would delay serving this important market for at least 5 years with the danger for others to take advantage and to develop own systems.
4) It was not presented sufficiently.
a) This is not true, usually too less time was given to present and to discuss. As an example, we take the last meeting of June 23, where an agenda was agreed, but at the end for Matthias proposal the discussion was very short and my presentation was not even mentioned. How can proposals be discussed if a lot of time is given to other items? The minutes do not represent the end of the meeting and needs to be corrected.
Again, it is the right time to close the existing gaps between the islands to make SPE the next big story in wired ethernet history.
Dieter Schicketanz
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1