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

Re: [802.3BA] XR ad hoc Phone Conference Notice

To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] XR ad hoc Phone Conference Notice
From: Petar Pepeljugoski <petarp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:26:08 -0400
Delivered-to: mhonarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <70B72343A17B89469CA8E3D5264091EA02D3A8E2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-802-3-HSSG>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20STDS-802-3-HSSG>
List-owner: <mailto:STDS-802-3-HSSG-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-subscribe: <mailto:STDS-802-3-HSSG-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:STDS-802-3-HSSG-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
References: <70B72343A17B89469CA8E3D5264091EA02D3A8E2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Petar Pepeljugoski <petarp@xxxxxxxxxx>

Hi all,

As a user of parallel PMD technology, I have the same position as Jeff.

I believe that whatever the outcome, the baseline proposal (100m parallel optics over OM3) should not be burdened by the increased reach (either by cost, power consumption, any use of mandatory additional chips that enable the performance, or additional testing requirements).

Regards,

Peter

Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218 (mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134 (shipping)
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

e-mail: petarp@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax: (914)-945-4134

From:	Jeff Maki <jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:	07/09/2008 10:11 PM
Subject:	Re: [802.3BA] XR ad hoc Phone Conference Notice

Dear MMF XR Ad Hoc Committee Members,

I believe our current objective of “at least 100 meters on OM3 MMF” should remain as a primary goal, the baseline. Support for any form of extended reach should be considered only if it does not compromise this primary goal. A single PMD for all reach objectives is indeed a good starting premise; however, it should not be paramount. In the following lists are factors, enhancements, or approaches I would like to put forward as acceptable and not acceptable for obtaining extended reach.

Not Acceptable:

1. Cost increase for the baseline PMD (optic) in order to obtain greater than 100-meter reach

2. EDC on the system/host board in any case

3. CDR on the system/host board as part of the baseline solution

4. EDC in the baseline PMD (optic)

5. CDR in the baseline PMD (optic)

Acceptable:

1. Use of OM4 fiber

2. Process maturity that yields longer reach with no cost increase

In summary, we should not burden the baseline solution with cost increases to meet the needs of an extended-reach solution.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Maki