RE: [EFM] 100 Mbps Proposals--copper
Geoff and all
We seem to have two threads going, One on copper and one on fiber.
My original email was in reference to the 2 or 3 different proposals we
have seen addressing 100 Mbps operation on SM fiber in IEEE 802.3ah and the
100 Mbps two fiber SM fiber call for interest recently communicated on the
IEEE 802.3 reflector.
Bruce
onAt 01:08 PM 2/14/2002 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>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
>> > >