Re: Optical Connectors
Hi Tad,
Actually, I can completely accept your points. I was hoping to hear from Paul
Kolesar and perhaps Steve Swanson, and maybe some others from the
connector/cable side. If most of you guys agree .... I certainly won't argue
with that!
Joel
-----------------
"mailserv.mmm.com" wrote:
> Joel,
>
> I wish it would be as simple as it sounds from your note. The SFF have
> become popular mainly due to massive GBIC implementation where size was of
> critical importance. I am not sure if the SFF footprint (not a pigtail)
> would suit the 1550 uncooled laser as an example.
>
> Furthermore, the SFF connector's are not as popular yet within the premises
> cabling industry, represented mainly by the component manufacturers, as you
> may think. Numerous attempts to standardize neither one or all of the SFF
> connectors by the ISO/IEC WG3 (ISO 11801 2-nd edition) have failed including
> latest attempt at the June '00 plenary meeting in a country by country vote
> of 10:4. This is roughly 75%.
>
> Based on the above I'd suggest, as stated in my previous notes, to stay with
> the duplex SC and specify the SFF connectors, as documented by the Fibre
> Channe,l in the informative Annex XX. This would fulfill the compliance
> requirement with ISO 11801 and be the quickest, and safest way I think, to
> satisfy all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tad
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joel Goergen <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Optical Connectors
>
> >
> > Rich,
> >
> > I agree with the second part from Tad, as I outlined when I suggested we
> refer to
> > other standards groups. But the first part I disagree with. Had we known
> back
> > then that SFF components would be so popular, I don't believe the SC would
> be
> > listed, or the only one listed. I reckon my question was "is there a
> solution
> > today that beter suits us then the SC?" I just don't buy the arguement
> "If it
> > ain't broke, don't fix it" for this case. I really thing we should be
> looking at
> > the SFF packaging right off the bat.
> >
> > Take care
> > Joel
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Rich Taborek wrote:
> >
> > > Joel,
> > >
> > > The flip side is that the SC has worked for Gigabit Ethernet just fine
> > > and multiple SFF connectors are being used in GbE equipment anyway. Once
> > > again: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> > >
> > > If this isn't good enough, I suggest that a second best alternative is
> > > to specify the SC and also do as Tad Szostak of 3M suggests in his note
> > > on this thread:
> > > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02933.html. In
> > > that note, Tad suggests cross referencing other standards such as:
> > > ISO/IEC WG3 11801 - International Premises Cabling Standard
> > >
> > > "2-nd edition of the 11801 draft standard scheduled for completion first
> > > quarter of 2001 specifies at the TO duplex SC only. It allows use of the
> > > SFF (Small Form Factor) connectors anywhere else for as long as: a) they
> > > are standardized by the IEC 86B and b) are of the RJ-45 outline at the
> > > TO.
> > >
> > > At the bottom of my list would be to "hear more from the fiber suppliers
> > > and the components people on this issue regarding their thoughts on pros
> > > and cons of a particular connector or specification system." This, in
> > > essence, is a connector war. Been there many time, done that many times.
> > > It's extremely counter productive to a standards process.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Joel Goergen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > I thought about this for a few days, and I am not sure we should adopt
> the SC
> > > > for 10gigE ( and I know .... no one is specifically saying we should).
> Other
> > > > connector options are more attractive to higher port count systems
> that are
> > > > robust. It won't be long, based on past experience, when we will have
> large
> > > > port count 10gigE systems. I feel we should start with a connector
> that
> > > > makes sense to use, as I believe others have been saying, at least
> some of
> > > > the others on this thread.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to hear more from the fiber suppliers and the components
> people
> > > > on this issue regarding their thoughts on pros and cons of a
> particular
> > > > connector or specification system. I would rather not just refer to
> some
> > > > other standards group for the connector type. I just feel we should
> pick one
> > > > and reference a standards group, too. It seemed to work well in
> 802.3z.
> > > >
> > > > Take care
> > > > Joel
> > > > -------------------
> > > >
> > > > Howard Frazier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I love free food, and the optical component manufacturers always put
> on
> > > > > a nice spread.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's so bad about connector wars, anyway? Connector wars have
> gotten
> > > > > a bad rap because they have been bungled so badly by inept standards
> > > > > committees. Consider what we did in 802.3z:
> > > > >
> > > > > 0) We adopted the SC and the DB-9 as the baseline connectors for
> 802.3z
> > > > > in November, 1996 in Vancouver.
> > > > > CUT HERE
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
> > > Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
> > > nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
> > > 2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com
> >
> > --
> > Joel Goergen
> > Force10 Networks
> > 1440 McCarthy blvd
> > Milpitas, Ca, 95035
> >
> > Email: joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Direct: (408) 571-3694
> > Cell: (612) 670-5930
> > Fax: (408) 571-3550
> >
> >
> >
--
Joel Goergen
Force10 Networks
1440 McCarthy blvd
Milpitas, Ca, 95035
Email: joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direct: (408) 571-3694
Cell: (612) 670-5930
Fax: (408) 571-3550