RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical fiber cable
Okay, let's play ball.
Chris,
One implication/interpretation in/from your note is that Picolight will be
proposing a VSR (Very Short Reach) solution which does not support any of
the current objectives of the IEEE P802.3ae Task Force.
Now, I realize that "Very Short" to one person is not "Very Short" to
another.
This is you opportunity to clarify.
jonathan
Jonathan Thatcher,
Chair, IEEE 802.3ae (10 Gigabit Ethernet)
Principal Engineer, World Wide Packets
PO BOX 141719, Suite B; 12720 E. Nora, Spokane, WA 99214
509-242-9000 X228; Fax 509-242-9001; jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Simoneaux [mailto:csimoneaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:38 PM
>To: 'Roy Bynum'
>Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical
>fiber cable
>
>
>
>Roy,
>Yes, your "leap" appears to be accurate. We feel that there
>is a large,
>important space, i.e. VSR, which could benefit from 850nm
>serial. I was not
>participating in GbE during the development stage. So I can't
>comment on
>whether I'm bucking the basis for which GbE was developed
>under. But, as
>the cost ratio of GbE LX/SX was sufficient to justify the SX product, a
>similar ratio is expected for 10Gb WWDM/850 Serial.
>
>Picolight will be presenting at the Ottawa meeting in support of my
>submissions.
>
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 5:38 PM
>To: Chris Simoneaux
>Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical
>fiber cable
>
>
>Chris,
>
>After looking at the distance objectives, and reading the
>reflector messages
>on the issue of 100m 850nm PMD, is there anything that
>you believe is missing? I participated in the distance ad hoc
>last year and
>the market for a very short reach PMD did not receive
>much comment. My memory may be faulty, but believe that most of the
>emphasis was on distances that reflected the existing paradigm
>in GbE which had just been completed. I am making a "leap"
>here in that I
>believe that you think that there may need to be a change
>in the paradigm. I believe I understand you to say that
>unlike the paradigm
>that GbE was developed under, there is a major
>potential market for very short reach (VSR) optics for 10GbE. Am I
>correct?
>
>If you believe that a paradigm shift is needed, will you be presenting
>anything next week?
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chris Simoneaux" <csimoneaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: "Edward Chang" <edward.chang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Roy Bynum"
><rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 1:20 PM
>Subject: RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical
>fiber cable
>
>
>>
>> Jay,
>>
>> I am not arguing that anyone has done a poor job at
>anything. That's a
>> severe misinterpretation of my point. All I'm saying is that
>we should
>> support the industry with the most cost effective solution.
>And from my
>> perspective, we should identify where the potential 10GE
>links exist. If
>> you can come up with such a survey/matrix, I'd love to see
>it. I believe
>> they may exist in the telecom industry, but for the most part are
>> proprietary to the company doing the survey.
>>
>> Also, I never mentioned anything about multiplying PMDs.
>Again, all I
>said
>> was that the IEEE should choose the most cost effective
>solution(s). If,
>> from all the data we have, we find that your list of PMD's stands by
>> themselves, then so be it. However, there is a large group
>(including
>> myself) that would dispute that.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:59 AM
>> To: Chris Simoneaux
>> Cc: Edward Chang; Roy Bynum; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical
>fiber cable
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> One of the initial requirements in the creation of a standard is the
>> definition of objectives. I think we did a very good job of
>that in 10GBE.
>> As has been pointed out before, these discussions are a
>reprise of the
>ones
>> we had when we originally defined the objectives. Someone needing a
>generic
>> 10GB link can find it in one of the PMD's meeting the
>objectives we've
>> defined. I think we now risk violating Occam's Razor;
>multiplying PMD's
>> beyond necessity.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>