RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
My interpretation is that "MMF" indeed means installed or new, as indicated.
This is clearly defendable.
Defining "installed MMF" to be the same as 802.3z fiber is still ambiguous.
It has two potential meanings:
1. All MMF fibers referenced in 802.3z will run to 100 meters.
2. At least one MMF fiber referenced in 802.3z will run to 100 meters.
My interpretation here is that "1." was intended, not "2." In short, that
"installed MMF" included an assumption that 100 meters would be achieved on
"160 MHz*km:, 62.5 micron (FDDI-grade) fiber.
>From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:25 PM
>Subject: Re: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
>I believe that Chris Diminico did an excellent job of
>clarifying the two
>MMF objectives in his recent note to this reflector:
>note provides the following clarifications:
>Installed MMF - MMF as referenced in 802.3z
>MMF - Either installed MMF or the Next Generation MMF fiber
>There have been no objections to Chris's clarification. I fully support
>these clarifications. I don't understand the purpose of any discussion
>regarding exactly "how" the objectives were worded the way
>they are. The
>fact is that the wording stands unless a change is agree to by 75% of
>Roy Bynum wrote:
>> In the discussions about what could be achieved and what the
>> applications were, based on the traditional use of Ethernet,
>> 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
>> 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
>> Thank you,
>> Roy Bynum
>> 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.
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >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
>> >and the implementation practices, I am the more serious
>about holding the
>> >people that said that they could do the serial 850nm PMD to
>> >Thank you,
>> >Roy Bynum
>> >At 01:33 PM 7/27/00 -0700, Paul Bottorff wrote:
>> > >Brad:
>> > >
>> > >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.
>> > >
>> > >Cheers,
>> > >
>> > >Paul
>Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
>Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
>nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
>2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com