| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi John and Brian, We aren’t talking different fiber types here (no enthusiasm yet in 802.3 around specifying G.654.E fiber instead of G.652). It would seem odd, and probably confusing to the market if something called 400GBASE-LR8 and something called 400GBASE-LR4 had different reaches over the same fiber type. Regards, Steve From: Brian Welch (bpwelch) <00000e3f3facf699-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
John, I’m not entirely sure what you mean, but if you look for instance at the 400G MMF task force they have different reaches for 400G-SR8 (100m over OM5) and 400G-SR4.2 (150m over OM5), and of course different reaches within each for different
fiber types…. Brian From: jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx>
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 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 |