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

Re: Nomenclature update

[Date: 05/30/2000  From Seto]

Hello again,

Here is another theory.  Let me see if this works.

In 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-SX, 1000BASE-LX and so on, we assume serial as 
default.  We don't call 100BASE-FX as 100BASE-FX1 or 100BASE-TX as 
100BASE-TX1, even though we call 100BASE-T4 as 100BASE-T4 and 100BASE-T2 
as 100BASE-T2.  As long as the transmission scheme is serial, we don't 
need another letter to distinguish serial as serial.  

According to this theory, we may be able to name 10GBASE-xxx as follow:

850nm Serial LAN	10GBASE-SX
1310nm Serial LAN	10GBASE-LX
1550nm Serial LAN	10GBASE-EX
1310nm WWDM LAN		10GBASE-LX4

850nm Serial WAN	10GBASE-SW
1310nm Serial WAN	10GBASE-LW
1550nm Serial WAN	10GBASE-EW
1310nm WWDM WAN		10GBASE-LW4

I know there is a flaw in my new theory.  According to this theory, 
1000BASE-T should have been called '1000BASE-T4'.  ;-)
In any event, I think the naming of an Ethernet standard has been very much 
market oriented.  Usually, the names come first and the reasons follow.


> I agree with Seto.
> I like 10GBASE-??? much better than 10kBASE-???.
> I don't want to have to go another round with all of the style guide
> keepers of the world explaining how to capitalize 10kBASE-???.
> 10G is already developing an identity, and we should take advantage of this.
> Just ask your self: Which of these choices makes me think of 10 gigabits.
> 10G
> or
> 10k
> Howard Frazier
> Cisco Systems, Inc.