Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu adjourned

If we do need to reduce from 10km (in my mind still a big if), I think keeping with “L” would be just fine. We have kept “S” for MMF solutions are the reach changed due to fiber restrictions….

 

Brian

 

From: John DAmbrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 9:39 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu adjourned

 

 

Chris,

Your response isn’t clear to me- are you suggesting that if the objective were reduced to 8km you would want to continue to use the LR in the name? 

 

I wouldn’t support this myself.  I look back to the confusion that was caused by LR10 10 years ago -  I remember presentations where the audience indicated that they thought LR10 would support the same reaches as 10GBASE-LR.  I see no reason why this would change now.

 

John

 

From: Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 12:11 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu adjourned

 

Hi Gary

 

Looks like this is an important consideration. I only focused on what it would take to change the objective within 802.3cu.

 

Changing the LR name would not be a good idea, so that would not be a suggested path.

 

Chris

 

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1