EMI and XGBIC
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
HP ProCurve Networks