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

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.


>-----Original Message-----
>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 
>from their
>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.
>-----Original Message-----
>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 
>record for 
>single mode implementations.  At present, WorldCom has not 
>deployed any 
>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. 
>)  Several 
>system vendors are attempting to make use of LC, but at 
>present, none have 
>been certified.  Given the form factor that would use XAUI, 
>SFF connectors 
>would not be a requirement.
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>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 
>high mate/demate
>>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 
>procedure. Therefore
>>it's difficult to choose the best solution.  Inevitably the 
>real winner/s
>>will come forward. Conclusion: Choose a connector at the 
>standards level as
>>it can expose good points of each solution.
>>Chris Simoneaux
>>-----Original Message-----
>>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 
>the market
>>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 
>transmission gear
>>because of the fragile "lock" tab that is on the connector.
>>Thank you,
>>Roy Bynum
>>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 
>the following
>> >comments:
>> >
>> >-----------------------
>> >"Bill Wiedemann: Regarding 850CWDM we are planning to make first
>> >implementations with duplex SC moving to LC with small form 
>factors. Our
>> >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
>> > 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 
>connector. Rationale:
>> >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.
>> >
>> >jonathan
>> >
>> >** In reality, this was bumped up to 802.3 because neither 
>I (sub-chair
>> >for PMD) nor Howard (802.3z chair) wanted to use precious 
>committee time
>> >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
>> >