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

Re: Nomenclature update

Except that 100BASE-T4 uses 4 pairs in the same cable, just like 1000BASE-T.


At 09:03 AM 5/31/00 +0200, Erik van Oosten wrote:
>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.
>    Erik.
>"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