RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
As part of the distance Ad Hoc, I was under the impression that the 300m
objective was for new technology MMF in the building risers. The Ad Hoc
was told that 100m over "installed" MMF was feasable at a symbol rate of
over 10Gb, equivalent to the proposed 850nm serial PMD. Were we
mislead? I don't know. As a customer participating in this process and
going back to looking at the most likely areas of initial implementation
and the implementation practices, I am the more serious about holding the
people that said that they could do the serial 850nm PMD to their implied
At 01:33 PM 7/27/00 -0700, Paul Bottorff wrote:
>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 [mailto:Ali.Ghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 2:17 PM
>> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Ali.Ghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel
>> > From: "Booth, Bradley" <bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > 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
>> 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
>> for sub 100 m is needed, otherwise there will several
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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