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

RE: re[2]: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear

Brian and Ed_Lucent:

Thanks for valuable information.

Yes, with the controlled launch, the installed base MM fiber can reach 300
meter using 850 nm VCSEL, and reach 400 meter using 1300 nm FP laser, both
at 2.5 Gbps data rate.  I will present the data in Montreal. 

Concerning the super MM fibers, I have studied their performance, and are
great.  Basically what they did is to avoid the mistakes industry did on the
existing MM fibers.  With the improved EMB of the installed base, they are
as good as the supper fibers.  However, there are terribly defected MM
fibers among the installed base; namely, excessive DMD fiber, which we have
to remove from the installed base.

Both the improved EBM, installed base, and the super fibers are needed to
serve industry needs.  They will co-exist to keep users happy.

Ed Chang
Unisys Corporation   

-----Original Message-----
From: BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 10:59 PM
To: ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: re[2]: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear

     Just to clarify.  The Blaze WWDM proposal is to use 8 VCSELs, each at 
     1.25Gb/s, so 200m on the installed base of MMF is feasible with this 
     approach.  The HP WWDM proposal is to use 4 1.3 micron uncooled DFBs 
     (with reduced specs), supporting 300m on the installed base of MMF.  
     Of course if Ed Chang has a new controlled launch scheme to present to 
     us, or if an MAS scheme is adopted, longer distances may be achieved.
     -Brian Lemoff
      HP Labs

______________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: RE: re[2]: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear
Author:  Non-HP-ecornejo (ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx) at HP-PaloAlto,mimegw2
Date:    6/29/99 2:10 PM


Just keep in mind that the serial VCSEL 10G solution will meet 300m, but
over enhanced MMF and not the embedded base. The WWDM approach will support
installed MMF, but can only go ~100m. So to support 300m of installed base
with the WWDM approach you need to go with 4 1.3DFB sources multiplexed.

Having said that..would you still have a strong bias towards including the
embedded base in the objective, or would you be content just saying MMF and
excluding the word "embedded" or "installed".


> ----------
> From:         Chang, Edward S[SMTP:Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:         Tuesday, June 29, 1999 11:57 AM
> To:   rmarsland@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Chang, Edward S'; 'Bill Woodruff'
> Cc:   'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'
> Subject:      RE: re[2]: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear
> Bob:
> Thanks, I appreciate the very valuable information.  VCSEL will play a
> major
> role for 10GbE product.
> Thanks again, 
> Ed Chang 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Marsland [mailto:rmarsland@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 10:27 AM
> To: 'Chang, Edward S'; 'Bill Woodruff'
> Cc: 'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: re[2]: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear
> Ed,
>    I think it is clear that VCSELs are already operating at 10 Gbit/s.
> The 
> data I presented at the June meeting was with multi-mode 850nm VCSELs.  I 
> believe there was also a Lucent talk based on 10 Gbit/s 850 nm VCSELs.
> The 
> question is really in the details of what extinction ratio and coding 
> overhead are required.  I'm with Martin Nuss when it comes to having a 
> strong preference for 10 Gbaud over 12.5.  Also, extinction ratio >>6 dB
> is 
> challenging with direct modulation at these rates (although clever TX 
> designers may come up with a way of beating the VCSEL into submission).
> Rob
> Robert A. Marsland
> Focused Research, Inc. (a New Focus company)
> 555 Science Dr.
> Madison, WI 53711
> (608) 238 2455
> (608) 238 2656 FAX
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chang, Edward S [SMTP:Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 7:50 AM
> To:   Bill Woodruff; Perkins, Drew; 'piers_dawe@xxxxxx'; 
> 'stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxx'; 'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'
> Subject:      RE: re[2]: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear
> Bill:
> I believe, users support both serial and parallel approaches.  Both are
> equally viable.  It is a mistake at this initial stage using limited
> knowledge to determine the market several years down the road.  Market is
> shaped by human preferences, then technologies; therefore, we can not use
> a
> few technical facts to predict future market direction.
> When we, a group, introduced VICEL to industry, there were objections
> everywhere.  Today, Vixcel is the winner.  Whenever, there are needs in
> market, someone will come up with a right product.
> By the way, do you think VCSEL will perform at 10 Gbps in the near future?
> Ed Chang
> Unisys Corporation
> Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx