Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10MMF
If this 300m over installed FDDI fiber is the goal, why is the IEEE wasting
time with an objective that doesn't address this. In fact, why is the IEEE
wasting time on a PAR that duplicates a solution already ratified by the
802.3ae standard (10GBase-LX4). If the reason is the potential lower cost,
I would argue this point as well. Multiple (more than 5) vendors are now
designing and delivering LX4 transceivers (both XENPAK and X2). In fact,
our company is delivering LX4 TOSA and LX4 ROSA optics to the market at
costs that will easily meet the volume cost targets of the transceiver
manufacturer's and the system vendors. Additionally, demonstrations have
been shown by at least 2 companies that are working on LX4 VCSEL based
From the schedule, it appears the LRM standard won't be ratified until 2006.
It appears the IEEE is wasting time on something that Might be lower cost
several years away. What happened to the rule of "One problem, one
solution" in the IEEE. Doesn't this violate that goal.
From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@CISCO.COM]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10MMF
To all LRMers
Sorry I could not make it to Portland. This is the last month of our fiscal
year and I am called by a higher power to focus on near term goals :)).
To echo Val's first point, we have been shipping -ER, -LR and -SR to
customers for some many months now. The relevant experience for the 300
meter goal is not comparisons to 1000BASE-SX at this point, but experience
with deployment of the shipping port types and talking to customers about
all the existing and potential 10GBASE- port types.
Customers are communicating a VERY strong requirement for 300 meters on
legacy and new MM fiber. To ignore this requirement is, at the very least,
to neglect the broad market potential criterion. You may not agree with
this requirement but I can tell you from personal experience it is the
expectation today from the customers who want spend money on 10 Gb Ethernet.
At 11:13 PM 7/14/2004 -0700, Val Oliva wrote:
>I want to be clear, as a system vendor, that the
>following are clear customer requirements for this
>1. 10GMMF must support a maximum distance of 300m
> (not 220m, which I hear from other optic vendors),
> the maximum lenght for support of FDDI-grade fiber.
>2. Ability to support single mode fiber using the
> same PHY or standard is critical as well.
>Please reply to firstname.lastname@example.org for further
>questions about this requirement.
>Thank you. Val Oliva
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
170 West Tasman Drive
MS SJ B2
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
ip phone: 408-526-4534