RE: Nomenclature update
Your nomenclature seems much easier to decipher and more in line with
existing conventions. I believe it will be beneficial to work from your
suggestion as a base line.
From: Seto, Koichiro [SMTP:seto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: Nomenclature update
[Date: 05/30/2000 From Seto]
Here is another theory. Let me see if this works.
In 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-SX, 1000BASE-LX and so on, we assume serial
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
as 100BASE-T2. As long as the transmission scheme is serial, we
need another letter to distinguish serial as serial.
According to this theory, we may be able to name 10GBASE-xxx as
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
market oriented. Usually, the names come first and the reasons
> 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
> 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
> Howard Frazier
> Cisco Systems, Inc.