Re: Nomenclature update
It almost works.
The structure of the cable does not matter as much as the
number of cables. In 1000BASE-T there is 1 UTP cable (with 4
pairs inside, but that won't bother the users). Now we have
both serial and WDM over 1 fiber-pair. (Funny how this works
differently for fiber.)
I like the proposed names but we should adopt them only for
the right reasons.
"Seto, Koichiro" wrote:
> [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
> 850nm WWDM LAN 10GBASE-SX4
> 1310nm WWDM LAN 10GBASE-LX4
> 850nm Serial WAN 10GBASE-SW
> 1310nm Serial WAN 10GBASE-LW
> 1550nm Serial WAN 10GBASE-EW
> 850nm WWDM WAN 10GBASE-SW4
> 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.
* Erik van Oosten
* Lucent Technologies