Thread Links |
Date Links |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |

*To*: "Perkins, Drew" <drew.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Why 10 km RE: Going the distance*From*: Bruce_Tolley@xxxxxxxx*Date*: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:53:56 -0700*cc*: "'Howard Frazier'" <hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx>, "'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>*Sender*: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Drew: 10 km is what we Ethernet vendors are doing today with 1000BASE-LX interfaces. Some of these applications are very large campuses, others are the equivalent to private "MANs", others are GbE access to some facility that is not owned by the customers (a MAN). I have proposed 10 km as a goal for the HSSG because GbE customers will want to run 10 GbE over the same links also some PHY vendors seem to think the goal is feasible at reasonable cost. Perhaps 15 km would be a better number since it is based on established MAN topologies. Bruce "Perkins, Drew" <drew.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx> on 07/01/99 02:42:03 PM Sent by: "Perkins, Drew" <drew.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'Howard Frazier'" <hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx>, "'stds-802-3-hssg @ieee.org'" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx> cc: (Bruce Tolley/HQ/3Com) Subject: RE: Going the distance 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 :-). Drew --------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Howard Frazier Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 1:16 PM To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx 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. Howard Frazier Cisco Systems, Inc.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Going the distance** - Next by Date:
**RE: Issues concerning 10GbE speed standards** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Distance objective** - Next by thread:
**9.584640 Gbps** - Index(es):