RE: Going the distance
- To: "'Howard Frazier'" <hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx>, "'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Going the distance
- From: "Perkins, Drew" <drew.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:42:03 -0700
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have an interesting question about 3 km vs. 10 km. If the objective is 10
km in order to work in MANs, then this objective seems like a telco
objective. Telcos are used to buying either 2 km (SR) or 15 km (IR) or 40/80
km (LR for 1310/1550 nm) equipment. I do not know this for a fact, but I
would presume that telcos have built out their physical plant taking 15 km
into account. If so, then 10 is not as useful. On the other hand, DSL specs
don't exactly conform with voice specs for copper lines, and in the end
people and carriers learn to cope :-).
Ciena Corporation Email: ddp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Core Switching Division Tel: 408-865-6202
10201 Bubb Road Fax: 408-865-6291
Cupertino, CA 95014 Cell/Pager: 408-829-8298
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Howard
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Going the distance
I accept Bob Grow's ammendment to the motion that Rich made and I seconded.
I would like to encourage every one to think of this motion as incremental
progress. If we adopt the motion, we will have a solid starting point,
and we can add other distance objectives, or revise the numbers stated
in this objective, at any time before we ballot the standard.
As far as the 2-3 km vs 10 km debate, I agree that 10 km would be
preferable. I must point out that if we wind up with 10 km, we would
have met an objective that required only 3 km. If, in the course of
writing the standard, we find that 10 km can readily be achieved at
some acceptable cost premium over 3 km, then we would most likely write
the specification in support of 10 km.
Cisco Systems, Inc.