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

Hi Jeff;
 
Thanks for your comment. You missed one critical point that there is cost increase from OM3 to OM4. If you take ribbon cable cost in perspective, OM4 option is possibly the largest of the 4 options. 
 
Besides, the use of OM4 requires to tighten TX specs which impact TX yield, so you are actually compromising the primary goal.
 
Frank
From: Jeff Maki [mailto:jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:02 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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

 

 

————————————————

Jeffery J. Maki, Ph.D.

Principal Optical Engineer

Juniper Networks, Inc.

1194 North Mathilda Avenue

Sunnyvale, CA  94089-1206

Voice +1-408-936-8575

FAX +1-408-936-3025

www.juniper.net

jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx

————————————————