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

Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10MMF


A serial form factor solution is not a distinct solution to 300m over FDDI
fiber.  Since when do we define form factors in the IEEE.  Isn't this for
MSA organizations.  As to the serial nature, LX4 can also accept a serial
input, just like the serial solutions can accept a XAUI signal.  If you can
have a XAUI to 10G Serial CDR, you can have a 10G serial to XAUI CDR.  Let's
not beat around the bush.  This PAR is only being pushed through to create a
second solution to the problem.   I.E 300m over installed fiber.  Isn't this
the true problem we are solving.  In fact, this new solution isn't even
doing that.  It is only addressing 220m over installed fiber.

To the end customers, all of the 802.3ae solutions will be available in all
of the form factors (XENPAK, X2, XPAK, XFP).  Adding another solution will
only confuse the end customers.

During the 802.3ae standardization, all of the system vendors were adamant
about creating a "minimum set of solutions" in order not to confuse the
customers.  Doesn't this new solution just contradict the system vendors
argument 3 years ago.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tolley []
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:58 PM
To: Eric Grann;
Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10MMF


The PAR and the five critters define the problem as a unique and distinct
serial small form factor solution for legacy MM fiber.


At 01:00 PM 7/15/2004 -0700, Eric Grann wrote:
>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
>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.
>-----Original Message-----
>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
>At 11:13 PM 7/14/2004 -0700, Val Oliva wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >I want to be clear, as a system vendor, that the
> >following are clear customer requirements for this
> >standard:
> >
> >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 for further
> >questions about this requirement.
> >
> >Thank you. Val Oliva
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> >
>Bruce Tolley
>Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
>Gigabit Systems Business Unit
>Cisco Systems
>170 West Tasman Drive
>San Jose, CA 95134-1706
>ip phone: 408-526-4534

Bruce Tolley
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
ip phone: 408-526-4534