RE: Going the distance
- To: BRIAN_LEMOFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Chang, Edward S" <Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Going the distance
- From: "Chang, Edward S" <Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:42:20 -0400
- Cc: hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx, stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for information.
I have the Corning specification and short length of CL1000. Yes, CL1000 is
specified at 1000 meter with 1.25 Gbps which is marginal on paper to meet
550 meter at 2.5 Gbps. I will not rule it out; however, I will not commit
either till I test more with 10GbE specifications. The CL2000 is 50 um, and
sure from the specification it will meet, near 1 km at 2.5 Gbps.
I failed to obtain Lucent's new fiber specification; therefore, I could not
comment. Is the specification published already? Is it about same
performance as CL fibers?
Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 4:02 PM
Cc: hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Going the distance
The Corning Infinicor CL2000 fiber is a 50 micron core fiber that
guarantees 2000 m for Gigabit Ethernet at 1310nm. There should be no
problem going 550m at 2.5 Gb/s. In fact, at 2.5 Gbaud, 1km should be
possible. The 62.5 micron CL1000 fiber guarantees 1000 m at GbE at
1310nm. This may also be capable of 550m at 2.5Gb/s. Finally, the
new Lucent fiber that Paul Kolesar has presented should be capable of
550m at 850nm at 2.5Gb/s. Thus, 10GbE solutions based on 4 channels
at 2.5-Gb/s/channel (even with 8B/10B) will be able to reach 550m on
some of the new "super" fibers.
______________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: RE: Going the distance
Author: Non-HP-Edward.Chang (Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx) at
Date: 7/2/99 8:10 AM
It seems you are proposing a clearly defined objective of 100m/550m/2km only
for premises and campus applications.
Yet, you are saying "There's nothing that says we can't add another
objective for a 10 km link".
However, I can not interpret the flexibility in the wording. I think, Bob
Grow's wording of "minimum 100 m...." is clearly showing the flexibility in
further extension of distances.
I doubt to propose 550 meter for premises at 10 Gbps data rate is making
sense. We can rule out all MM fibers including new super MM fibers to reach
550 meter either at 2.5 Gbps or 10 Gbps data rate at any wavelength. Only
SM fiber will do it. I do not think users are ready to convert MM fiber to
SM fibers(and also LW laser) within the premises just for "550 meter"
It implies, within the premises there is ONLY "100 meter" distance available
-- no other options. If we are in contact with our customers and listening
to be aware of their premises connections, "100 meter only" is unrealistic
restriction to them.
Bottom line is, we can not get 75% vote, if we only provide "100 meter"
We have to be more flexible to meet the needs of users who consist of a
large number of voters.
From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: Going the distance
>---------- Begin Proposed Motion ----------
>Move to adopt as an HSSG objective:
> Support premises cabling plant distances as specified in ISO/IEC 11801
> a. 100 m for horizontal cabling
> b. 550 m for vertical cabling
> c. 2 km for campus cabling
>Mover: Rich Taborek Seconder: Howard Frazier
>---------- End Proposed Motion ----------
>- Howard Frazier must again second the rewording
Sure. I'll buy it.
Here's another suggestion for the fans of 10 km: Vote for this motion.
There's nothing that says we can't add another objective for a 10 km link.