RE: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
With Rich Taborek's note, the discussion has spilled over to the full
reflector in mid stream, leaving those not following the previous threads to
come in to the discussion without context and background. I suggest taking
it back to the SSIG reflector, since this is relevant to SSIG positions. It
should be worked out there and then more widely socialized.
your assertion that the 850 nm solutions only partially meet one objective
is incorrect. The objective is specifically stated to allow either new or
existing MMF to fill the objective. As such the objective is fully met with
While serial 850 only meets one objective (300m), that objective represents
the majority of projected sales of enterprise network ports and service
provider ports. Over 7 million 10 G ports will be shipped into the
enterprise through 2005, and over 92% of enterprise backbone lengths are
less than 300 meters. (Source: Technical Essence Webs) The majority of
service provider ports will be very short reach (<300 meters) between
switches or routers. Both enterprise and service provider end users are best
served by including the 850 serial PMD. It offers the lowest total system
cost, and has been demonstrated by multiple vendors.
You are correct in stating that customers would be required to deploy new
MMF to use 850 nm serial solutions to 300 meters. But this is virtually the
same situation for all SMF PMDs. The IEEE 802.3 survey of cabling plants in
customer premises indicate that SMF represents less than 5% of the installed
fibers in buildings between telecommunications closets and the main
equipment room. New cable must be deployed for SMF PMDs as well.
End users have been installing and will continue to install next generation
MM fiber (NGMMF). End users that have purchased and installed NGMMF as the
primary backbone medium from Lucent include Agilent Technologies, BMW,
Nokia, the University of Texas, and Peco Genco. Many others are in the
process of installing NGMMF, including a large ISP. The success of NGMMF is
a. End user affirmation that serial 850 will likely end up providing
the lowest system cost.
b. The fact that cabling is a small part of the overall system cost.
c. End user desire to manage legacy, current, and future
applications on one fiber type.
(SM is NOT backward compatible to the <1Gbs applications that
most end users must support)
d. Aversion of end-users to installing difficult to terminate single
mode fiber in buildings.
e. The relative ease with which building backbones can be upgraded.
To your statement that "Specifying a PMD that implies a brand new MMF
infrastructure is not consistent with the goal of using existing technology
The goal of the IEEE is to use the technology (existing or new) that
provides the best solution for end users, at the lowest possible total cost.
Excluding a viable technology (serial 850) that offers the lowest system
cost is not in the best interest of the end user.
From: Andreas Bechtolsheim [SMTP:avb@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 9:40 AM
To: nuss@xxxxxxxxxx; Kolesar, Paul F (Paul)
Subject: Re: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
850nm VCSELs for 10 GE require customers to deploy new
I would recommend that PMD solutions are based on installed base MMF
Specifying a PMD that implies a brand new MMF infrastructure is not
consistent with the goal of using existing technology wherever
----- Begin Included Message -----
From nuss@xxxxxxxxxx Fri Apr 7 06:19:48 2000
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:09:05 -0400
From: Martin Nuss <nuss@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-SPAM-REASON: Suspicious TO Address
X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: ruebert.ieee.org [126.96.36.199]
Of all the MM-fiber PMD proposals, only the 850nm serial VCSEL
solution over the
new high-performance fibers has so far been shown to work under
conditions, with Bit Error Rate measurements and careful analysis of
impairments to support that, and working with VCSELs from many
suggestions below are highly puzzling to me...
Rich Taborek wrote:
> Vipul, Rob,
> It should be pointed out that a Serial 850nm solution only
partially meets one
> HSSG distance/cable plant objective: 300m on MMF. However, this
MMF must be the
> new, enhanced MMF. The Serial 850nmsolution addresses no SMF
> WWDM meets all HSSG MMF objectives as well as SMF objectives to
> I agree with Vipul's choice of 3 PMDs as the best possible PMD set
> HSSG HSSG distance/cable plant objectives.
> Best Regards,
> Vipul Bhatt wrote:
> > Rob,
> > Rob Marsland wrote:
> > >
> > > Finally, I hate to be annoying, but this is the SERIAL sig.
Since when is
> > > WWDM a serial solution?
> > >
> > There is nothing annoying about your question. I should answer.
I believe it
> > is in our (the Serial SIG's) best interest to rise above our
Serial focus and
> > recognize that an "all Serial" set of solutions that meets all
> > objectives is not something our customers are willing to sign up
> > proposing a set of three solutions - two of which are Serial - I
> > a set that has the highest chance of being accepted by our
customers and the
> > majority of 802.3ae members. I understand you disagree, and I
> > opinion.
> > Vipul
> Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
> Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
> nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
> 2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com
----- End Included Message -----