RE: Optical Connectors
The membership of the IEEE P802.3ae committee includes people, not
companies. I know we all slip on this at times, myself included. Please,
please, please, avoid company names.
>From: Chris Simoneaux [mailto:csimoneaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:15 AM
>To: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: Optical Connectors
>I would request Lucent to chime in here...but my understanding
>marketing guys is that they've been shipping LC connector
>systems for years,
>and 100's of K's of LC connectors are deployed in the field.
>Most (or all)
>being in singlemode applications.
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 7:48 PM
>To: Chris Simoneaux; HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: Optical Connectors
>I am not sure of your comment about LC having a proven track
>single mode implementations. At present, WorldCom has not
>LC. All of the connectors currently specified for SM installations is
>SC. A particular vendor is attempting to get WorldCom to make
>use of their
>connectors. ( I will not say how successful or not they are.
>system vendors are attempting to make use of LC, but at
>present, none have
>been certified. Given the form factor that would use XAUI,
>would not be a requirement.
>At 04:28 PM 7/21/00 -0600, Chris Simoneaux wrote:
>>Our opinion is that LC is a better connector than MTRJ. The
>LC does not
>>seem to suffer the possible damage that MTRJ can see with
>>cycles...due to the guide pin action. Also, the LC has a proven track
>>record for singlemode whereas the MTRJ does not.
>>PS: My feeling is the standards body's charter should be to specify a
>>connector. However, there's too much rhetoric in the
>>it's difficult to choose the best solution. Inevitably the
>>will come forward. Conclusion: Choose a connector at the
>standards level as
>>it can expose good points of each solution.
>>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 12:09 PM
>>To: Jonathan Thatcher; HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
>>Subject: Re: Optical Connectors
>>In spite of what Lucent wants, the LC connector does not have
>>support that MTRJ does. MTRJ also has a smaller form factor than does
>>LC. I don't like and am specifying the non-use of LC on
>>because of the fragile "lock" tab that is on the connector.
>>At 08:48 AM 7/18/00 -0700, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>> >I have opened this thread to continue the discussion on optical
>> >connectors. So far (what has come into my reader), we have
>> >"Bill Wiedemann: Regarding 850CWDM we are planning to make first
>> >implementations with duplex SC moving to LC with small form
>> >expectation is that small form factor with LC could be
>available a year
>> >from today. "
>> >"Jim Tatum: I would assume that 802.3ae would do the same
>as 802.3z, and
>> >NOT specify conectors. "
>> >"Ed Chang: There are so many different form factors, and connectors,
>> >even the GbE and Fibre Channel market can not get consensus."
>> >If we review the 802.3 Ethernet specification, we see that we have
>> >identified connectors for each variant (I don't remember an
>> >For example:
>> >7.6.2 AUI Configuration cable
>> >18.104.22.168 Optical for repeaters
>> >38.11.3 MDI = Duplex SC for GigE Optics
>> >39.5.1 MDI = Style 1 (DB9) and Style 2 for GigE Cu
>> >While I remember no rules that require us to do so, it
>seems obvious that
>> >there exists a precedent which should guide our decision.
>> >In 802.3z, we specifically took a vote to avoid connector
>> >("connector wars")**. We could do the same in 802.3ae. If
>we did, I would
>> >argue that we would, effectively, be retaining the duplex SC optical
>> >connector specified in clause 38.
>> >My PERSONAL preference would be to specify the LC
>> >1. There seems to be an overall inclination to move in that
>> >2. It sets the stage for some kind of "Small Form Factor" 10 Gig
>> >3. I don't think that it would negatively impact the cost of the
>> >transceiver in the 2002 (standard completion time frame).
>> >As CHAIR, I don't want to use up any cycles on this. If there isn't
>> >sufficient consensus to agree on an alternative to the SC,
>we should just
>> >adopt the SC and move on.
>> >** In reality, this was bumped up to 802.3 because neither
>> >for PMD) nor Howard (802.3z chair) wanted to use precious
>> >for the discussion.
>> >Jonathan Thatcher,
>> >Chair, IEEE 802.3ae (10 Gigabit Ethernet)
>> >Principal Engineer, World Wide Packets
>> >PO BOX 141719, Suite B; 12720 E. Nora, Spokane, WA 99214
>> >509-242-9000 X228; Fax 509-242-9001; jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx