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

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.
> Seto

* Erik van Oosten
* Lucent Technologies