RE: [EFM] 100 Mbps Proposals
Sorry just got of a meeting did not realize that I have created some
confusion:
You are right Geoff. 100BASE-T4 was 100 Meg combined on a single pair. So
this is not that. I am suggesting just like 100Base-T put 25Meg full duplex
on each pair
And,
Barry
you are correct Spectrum compatibility should be dealt with I think it can
be dealt with on 400-500 meter reaches
If the team thinks that there is interest for 100 Meg I'll be happy to send
a short presentation off line to people who are interested
Thanks
Behrooz
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:09 PM
To: O'Mahony, Barry
Cc: 'larry rennie'; Behrooz Rezvani; Bruce Tolley;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Roy Bynum
Subject: RE: [EFM] 100 Mbps Proposals
In addition, 100BASE-T4 does not support full duplex
Geoff
At 12:04 PM 2/14/02 -0800, O'Mahony, Barry wrote:
>As was brought up in Raleigh, it has not been demonstrated that 100BASE-T4
>meets the spectrum compatibility objective (and it is unlikely that it
>does). Leaving aside the discussion as to how close installed POTS wiring
>is to CAT3.
>
>There may be MxU instances where spectrum compatibility is not required,
and
>instances where it would be. It is an adopted EFM objective, however.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Barry O'Mahony
>Intel Labs
>Hillsboro, OR, USA
>tel: +1 (503) 264-8579
>barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxx
>barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: larry rennie [mailto:Larry.Rennie@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:28 AM
>To: Behrooz Rezvani
>Cc: Bruce Tolley; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Roy Bynum
>Subject: Re: [EFM] 100 Mbps Proposals
>
>
>
>Behrooz,
>
>Is not 100BASE-T4 100Mbits/sec over 4, Cu pairs?
>
>Larry
>
>Behrooz Rezvani wrote:
>
> > Bruce,
> >
> > if there is a success in starting such an effort, I would very much to
> > encourage you and other people to consider 100 mbps over 4 copper pairs
>for
> > reach <xyz> meters. That has a lot more practical applications in MxU.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Behrooz
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Roy Bynum" <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Bruce Tolley" <btolley@cisco.com>; <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: [EFM] 100 Mbps Proposals
> >
> > >
> > > Bruce,
> > >
> > > I am concerned about putting effort into developing a standard for
> > > technology that already exists for a market that is current, not
greatly
> > in
> > > the future.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
> > > At 07:48 PM 2/13/2002 -0800, Bruce Tolley wrote:
> > >
> > > >Colleagues:
> > > >
> > > >Those of you who are also on the 802.3 reflector saw that there is
call
> > > >for interest on the agenda of the March meeting in St Louis to
discuss
> > > >starting a 100 Mbps dual fiber SM fiber project outside of 802.3ah
task
> > force.
> > > >
> > > >While I have not yet decided where I stand on 100 Mbps solutions for
>EFM,
> > > >I wanted to communicate that I think this call for interest is
>premature,
> > > >I would strongly encourage the proponents of 100 Mbps on SM fiber to
> > > >converge on one strong proposal for the March IEEE 802.3ah meeting.
> > > >
> > > >We are already facing the challenge of perhaps too many EFM PHYs. To
> > > >specify an additional PHY for EFM outside of the 802.3ah TF only
makes
> > > >life more difficult.
> > > >
> > > >Bruce
> > >