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

RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.


Thanks for pointing that out.  I stand corrected.  The parallel optics and
parallel fiber could be applied to the 300m over MMF objective.  Although it
does meet that objective, the previous emails were targeting parallel
optics/fiber for the 100m application, and I should have probably qualified
my statement with that.

If it is only going to meet the 300m over MMF objective (and from Pat
Gilliland's presentation, only on new high bandwidth MMF), then I have the
same problem with this solution as I do with the 850nm Serial PMD solution.
They may both be the lowest cost today, but they don't satisfy the 100m over
installed MMF objective.  Considering we have two PMDs that are under
consideration to meet both the 100m over installed MMF and 300m over MMF
objectives, I believe it would be in the Task Force's best interest to focus
on those solutions.  That is just my humble opinion.


Brad Booth
Intel LAN Access Division, Austin Design Center
bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx>  
(512) 407-2135 office
(512) 589-4438 cellular

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Paul Bottorff [mailto:pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
		Sent:	Thursday, July 27, 2000 3:34 PM
		To:	Booth, Bradley; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
		Subject:	RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel


		I also understand our objectives in the same way. We don't
have an 
		objective for 100 m computer room connections. It seems to
me the 300 m 
		objective was written for computer rooms. The 300 m over MMF
could be 
		applied to any fiber solution.



		At 12:55 PM 7/27/2000 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:

		> From my understanding of the objectives, the task force
doesn't have a
		>distance objective of "100m data center applications."  We
do have an
		>objective for 100m over installed MMF fiber.  That 100m
distance objective
		>was chosen because it reflects what is used in the data
center applications.
		>If the task force satisfies the objective (which is a
requirement for the
		>task force to do), then we provide a solution for the
application.  The
		>reverse is not true.  If task force satisfies the
application, then we don't
		>meet our objectives.
		>Given that the task force has to satisfy objectives first
and foremost, I
		>believe that it is key that the task force focus on those
proposals that in
		>some manner satisfy an objective.  As I see it, parallel
optics and parallel
		>fiber do not satisfy any of our objectives; therefore, the
task force needs
		>to work on the ones that will satisfy our objectives.
		>                 -----Original Message-----
		>                 From:   ghiasi
		>                 Sent:   Thursday, July 27, 2000 2:17 PM
		>                 To:     stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx;
		>                 Cc:     Ali.Ghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxx
		>                 Subject:        RE: Equalization and
benefits of Parallel
		>                 Brad
		>                 > From: "Booth, Bradley"
		>                 > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
		>                 > Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits
of Parallel Optics.
		>                 > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:29:56 -0700
		>                 > MIME-Version: 1.0
		>                 > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients
		>                 > X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
		>                 > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to
		>                 > X-Moderator-Address:
		>                 >
		>                 >
		>                 > I have one question:
		>                 >
		>                 > Which of our distance objectives is
satisfied with
		>parallel fiber and
		>                 > parallel optics?
		>                 The 100 m data center applications.
		>                 >
		>                 > It has been my interpretation that when
we talked about
		>100m of installed
		>                 > base of MMF, that we were referring to
the MMF fiber
		>currently available for
		>                 > use by 802.3z.  Parallel optics does not
operate over this
		>installed base.
		>                 You are correct parallel optics would not
operate over an
		>installed two fiber
		>                 plant.  Parallel optics would loose if you
go in to an
		>installed fiber base.
		>                 What I suggested was 100m data center
applications, where
		>the fiber are not
		>                 installed in the building wiring.
		>                 Data center application are very
significant as stated in
		>the last meeting
		>                 about half the total market.  Solutions
significantly lower
		>cost targeted
		>                 for sub 100 m is needed, otherwise there
will several
		>proprietary solutions.
		>                 Parallel optics is the lowest cost, almost
mature after 3
		>years, lowest power,
		>                 and smallest foot print.  Parallel optics
is ideal to get
		>bandwidth off the
		>                 edge of your board.
		>                 Serial 850 or CWDM 850 can be another
candidate for low cost
		>data center
		>                 applications by having cable advantage
over parallell fiber.
		>But you need
		>                 to offset fiber advantage against power,
size, cost,
		>testing, and maturity.
		>                 >
		>                 > Or am I missing the point here?
		>                 >
		>                 > Cheers,
		>                 > Brad
		>                 Thanks,
		>                 Ali Ghiasi
		>                 Sun Microsystems
		>                 >

		Paul A. Bottorff, Director Switching Architecture
		Enterprise Solutions Technology Center
		Nortel Networks, Inc.
		4401 Great America Parkway
		Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
		Tel: 408 495 3365 Fax: 408 495 1299 ESN: 265 3365
		email: pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx