Re: Going the distance
- To: Larry Miller <l_d_miller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Going the distance
- From: "Simon L. Sabato" <simons@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 14:38:02 -0700
- CC: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
- References: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> At 9:16 AM 99/7/1, Larry Miller wrote:
> >I suspect that if the Committee, in its wisdom, legislates under-achieving
> >link lengths to accommodate the simultaneous worst-case everything as was
> >done in 802.3z, then we will have a similar phenomenon as we have today: if
> >you cannot easily double the link lengths (at least) then you probably
> >bought some pretty cheesy equipment. Sales people, I think, would rather
> >have the standard reflect more closely what the technology will reliably do,
> >not some pruned-back number that they have to talk around.
This statement confuses me. It is an inherent phenomenon of engineering
that either you 1) ensure that worst-case parts will still work
together, or 2) some combinations of parts will fail even though each is
within specifications. The latter is simply not a tolerable situation
to me. It's simple math, if you want 10,000,000 trouble free
installations, then you're going to have to ensure that the
one-in-a-million combination of worst-case devices still works.
Is there really *any* other way to go about this?