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

Re: [10GMMF] Customer Issues with LRM

Hi Val,
I agree on this high-end message and I understand Bruce request too, but
we should split the problem into two different options:
1 -     Do we need to support EDC as the valid solution for overcoming
MMF dispersion penalties? If "YES", we should agree (see reply from
Petar Papeljugosky) that 220m represents the actual state of the art
reach, unless we will use selected multimode fibers.
2 -     Do we need to reach anywise 300m as per Bruce (Cisco) request?
If "YES", we should find a different technology other then EDC for a
today solution.

The choice is up to the 10GBASE-LRM committee for the moment. Regarding
some potential vendors meeting Bruce request today with valuable
field-proved products, I am quite skeptic about.

Best regards


Dr. Ing. Stefano Bottacchi
Senior Technical Consultant
Concept Engineering
Infineon Technologies Fiber Optics GmbH
Wernerwerkdamm 16, 13623 Berlin
Phone  +49 (0)30 85400 1930
Mobile: +49 (0)160 8 81 20 94

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Val Oliva
Sent: Mittwoch, 10. November 2004 18:43
Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Customer Issues with LRM


I just got back from PR briefings in Europe and now
finally got a chance to read Bruce's requests.

It's important to heed Bruce's requests and as one
of your potential customer as well, it's critical
that LRM must support 300m for 62.5 and 50 micron
(aka, existing FDDI-grade fiber).

Not supporting these requirements (Bruce's request),
means saying good-bye to a large portion of the
market. Of course, it also means that those vendors
that meet Bruce's requirements have more
opportunities than those that don't.

Val Oliva
Product Line Manager for Edge and NMS Products
Foundry Networks, Inc.

--- Bruce Tolley <btolley@CISCO.COM> wrote:

> >Dear Colleagues:
> My job has changed a bit at Cisco and now I am focused more on booking
> revenues on a daily and monthly basis so I doubt I shall be able to
> attend
> the Plenary.
> I would like to sum up my perspective on customer requirements for LRM

> for the project to consider if we really hope to deliver a successful
> technology to the market. The data is based on 1) I am a customer
> and 2)
> interaction with my customers.
> Distance
> The clear requirement is for LRM to reach 300 meters. Anything less at

> this point is a non starter. The bar is not 220 meters with
> 1000BASE-SX on MMF
> but the fact that 10GBASE-SR and 10GBASE-LX4 are shipping and both
> reach
> 300 meters. Customers have the clear requirement to go 300 meters
> on MMF
> both installed and the new OM3 fiber.  This is reality today.
> Offset launches
> Customers (my customers) and me (a customer) need one LRM solution for

> 50 and 62.5 micron fiber.  I am not convinced that one offset launch
> condition
> will be optimal for both 62.5 and 50 micron fiber.  I and my
> customers
> would rather deal with the complexity of a dedicated MCP than with
> two
> different products with different built in offsets. Based on
> engineering
> experience with a related project, I am also not convinced that an
> internal
> offset will offer any cost savings on the module cost over the cost
> of a
> module plus MCP.
> Thanks
> Bruce
> Bruce Tolley
> Product Line Manager
> Transceiver Module Group
> Gigabit Systems Business Unit
> Cisco Systems
> 170 West Tasman Drive
> MS SJ B2
> San Jose, CA 95134-1706
> internet:
> ip phone: 408-526-4534

Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.