RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
In the discussions about what could be achieved and what the various known
applications were, based on the traditional use of Ethernet, the question
was raise about whether MMF could support 10GbE. There was even the
question of installed fiber and the issue of older "gofer bait" MMF
fiber. I could be wrong, but my perception is that one of the fiber
company people stated that the older MMF should be able to support 10Gb for
the lateral 100m traditional lengths, and the traditional riser or 300m
could be supported by the newer MMF. The word "installed" was inserted in
the motion proposal only, it was not agreed on by the people of the Ad Hoc.
At the time that the 300m motion that included the word "installed" was put
before the group, I remember thinking that this was not what was agreed on
by the distance Ad Hoc, and of course it was very quickly corrected. What
was left ambiguous was that the words "new multi-mode fiber" was trimmed to
be only "multi-mode fiber". At least that is the way that I remember it.
At 11:09 AM 8/2/00 -0600, Chris Simoneaux wrote:
>I would curious to know who made/implied promises of 850nm serial
>implementation @ 10Gbps over 100m of installed fiber.
>My understanding (and I wasn't part of the meetings when the objectives were
>developed, so correct me if I'm wrong) was that there was little or no
>representation from the 850 serial PMD guys.
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 7:37 AM
>To: Paul Bottorff; Booth, Bradley; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: 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
> >>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
> >>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
> >>some manner satisfy an objective. As I see it, parallel optics and
> >>fiber do not satisfy any of our objectives; therefore, the task force
> >>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
> >> Brad
> >> > From: "Booth, Bradley" <bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >> > Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel
> >> > 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
> >>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
> >>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
> >>data center
> >> applications by having cable advantage over parallell
> >>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