Re: 850 nm solutions
For Infiniband, I think that HARI is a very good solution. I question the way that it was introduced and developed as part of the
effort in something that is not Infiniband. If people want to make products for Infiniband, I have no problem with that. As a
customer, I question the motivations of my vendors to have me pay for the development of technology that was actually intended for
another use. I wonder how much that has already increased the price of the product that I will be receiving. I wonder even more
how much the vendor was actually trying to develop something for my use instead of somebody else, and gave me, the customer, the
"left overs". I wonder how much better the product, that I may buy, would have been better if the vendor had not been developing
technology for another use.
As a customer, I was hoping to receive an 802.3 Ethernet product that treated the interface to the optical domain as a digital
optical system, not an analog copper system, which you refer to for the use of HARI. As a customer I was hoping that the vendors
would listen to me and my requirements and look at it as an opportunity to enter a market that is as large as the global Internet,
instead of staying in the collective enterprise space. Vendors that are not looking at the market correctly have already lost their
market share in the Internet backbone, and they are about to start loosing it at the access edge as well. History has shown that
customers will get what they want one way or another.
The response of a BIG customer,
----- Original Message -----
From: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) <pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Rick Walker <walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:08 PM
Subject: RE: 850 nm solutions
> Infiniband will be using something very similar to the HARI interface over
> short copper links though the distance goal is, I think, 6 m. To travel over
> short copper cables, it may make sense to use a 4 wide signal from HARI
> rather than 10 Gbit/s serial.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Walker [mailto:walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 4:58 PM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: 850 nm solutions
> > Jim Tatum writes:
> > But why does it matter? Why limit the users? Why not put in the table. It
> > costs nothing. Just put in what the model and data tell us to. It is
> > my opinion that a large percentage of 10GB style links are going to be
> > very short, less than 10m. If you look at the way many fiber ports
> > are being used today, many are in the 10m range. Also, since copper
> > cables are going to be EXTREMELY challanged to go that distance at
> > 10GB, why not let the market choose the lowest cost solution using
> > 850nm VCSELs and 62.5um fiber?
> FWIW, I agree that 10G across CAT-6 or other twisted pair would be very
> difficult. However 10G across coaxial cable is fairly easy. It can be
> done with 0.1" diameter coaxial cable using simple NRZ data encoding. A
> simple FIR pre-equalizer can double this distance. Without a doubt
> copper would be the cheapest solution for links under 10M. I would
> estimate a mature chipset price of about $50 per end and $15 for the
> This performance was demonstrated in 1998 using a 25GHz bipolar chipset.
> See: Walker, R. C., K. Hsieh, T. A. Knotts and C. Yen, "A 10Gb/s
> Si-Bipolar TX/RX Chipset for Computer Data Transmission" , ISSCC Digest
> of Technical Papers 41(February 1998), 302,303,450.
> A Copper PHY was voted down by the committee because it was thought that
> there was no market for this type of low-cost short distance link.
> kind regards,
> Rick Walker