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


From an earlier thread, Rick Walker wrote;

>  Dear Ed,
>  > Ed Grivna <elg@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>  > I think you missed Joe's point.  He makes reference to a 1-mm hole.
>  > that is the size hole you would have if you routed only the
>  > bare fiber through the hole.  This implies usage of a buried
>  > module, or a module with a fiber pigtail.  In either case, the
>  > fiber is routed through a metal plate, significantly removed from
>  > the LASER diode and driver.  The plate is generally constructed as 
>  > a buried wall in the chassis, with a second bulkhead used to mount 
>  > connectors.
>  I don't think I missed the point.  I was attempting to show that this
>  extremely cumbersome technique is not widely used in 
>  low-cost systems. 
>  Most low-cost modules are not pigtailed.  They have a front-panel
>  connectors.  In this environment, it is much more difficult 
>  to properly
>  shield things. 
>  Are you suggesting that we should require a very expensive, telecom
>  style of construction for low-cost 10GbE ports?  Remember that many
>  systems may be built in metallized plastic packages with front-panel
>  mounted non-pigtailed modules. 
>  Best regards,
>  --
>  Rick Walker 

Perhaps one way of reducing this EMI problem and providing a mechanism
for swapping media types flexibly would be an XGBIC solution?

I am thinking that the XAUI or a similar interface on one side, and a
fiber coming out the other end (attached INSIDE) the module and then a
screw-tight or bulkhead locking mechanism that allows only the fiber to
extend out of the box might make things easier for everyone.

Rather than let it be a "Defacto" standard, why not standardize it 
(as the IEEE has done with MII, AUI and other exposed interfaces)
and then the system designers can move forward as the PHY solutions

Just thought I would throw some gasoline into this already hot
subject.  :)

Dan Dove
HP ProCurve Networks