| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Brian This situation is very different. When the reach was reduced in .3ba to 100m “S” was kept. Yes that is true, but there were no other S instances at the speed with a different reach. However, in this instance you also have LR4 – so one L does 10km and one does 8km? Not a good idea IMO. John From: Brian Welch (bpwelch) <bpwelch@xxxxxxxxx> 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> 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> 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 |