RE: WWDM vs. 10Gb/s serial
- To: "'BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx, stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: WWDM vs. 10Gb/s serial
- From: Curt Berg <cberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 09:39:00 -0700
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Looks like the WAN and LAN markets definitely need
different physical solutions. However to penetrate the
market faster, and to get ecomony of scale, it is vital that
we have one standard interface (like GMII + management),
that is independent of the physical interface.
ASIC Manager, Extreme Networks
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 9:11 AM
To: bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: WWDM vs. 10Gb/s serial
Again, you are confusing a LAN discussion with an independent, and
very different long-haul discussion. I agree wholeheartedly that
serial, i.e. externally modulated lasers similar to OC-192 products are
optimum solution for long-haul, and they are already widely available!
The SpectraLAN WWDM proposal is intended to be a low-cost solution for
premises and campus LANs (up to 300m on 62.5 micron fiber, up to 10km
single mode fiber). The economics of this market, and the decision
WWDM or serial are completely separate and very different from the
long-haul market that you are interested in.
Regardless of which market "drives" 10-GbE, different physical
will be required for the long-haul and the LAN. Nobody is going to buy
cooled, isolated, externally modulated transmitter, meeting all of the
rigorous specs for long-haul transmission, to go 200 meters between
closets in an office, or even to go 3km between buildings in a campus.
Both LAN and long-haul applications are open for discussion on this
reflector. It is important not to confuse the two when making
relating to physical layer solutions.