RE: Short haul PMDs
All,
Careful, we are not in the business of providing referrals! I'm sure that
wasn't the intend. Still, don't do this!
jonathan
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
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marshall Eisenberg [mailto:marshall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 7:17 AM
>To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: Short haul PMDs
>
>
>
>For those interested, you can get more information about this
>if you speak
>with Greg Collins at the Dell'Oro Group. His number is (650)
>529-2787 x226
>
>
>Regards,
>Marshall
>
>408.586.1754 direct
>408.586.1900 fax
>408.398.0014 cell
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Marshall Eisenberg
>Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 6:45 PM
>To: Seto, Koichiro; pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>hakimi@xxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: Short haul PMDs
>
>
>According to Dell'Oro's numbers, about 8,000 1000Base-T
>networking ports
>shipped in Q1/00. The Q2/00 numbers should be out soon.
>
>Regards,
>Marshall
>
>408.586.1754 direct
>408.586.1900 fax
>408.398.0014 cell
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Seto, Koichiro
>Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 4:58 PM
>To: pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx; gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>hakimi@xxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Short haul PMDs
>
>
>[Date: 08/03/2000 From Seto]
>
>Maybe, HP pro-curve unit has... They are the one of a few
>vendors actually
>shipping 1000BASE-CX options I believe.
>
>Seto
>
>>
>> So, does anyone have data on what percentage of Gigabit
>Ethernet links
>> ship with 1000BASE-CX?
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 4:45 PM
>> To: Hakimi, Sharam (Sharam)
>> Cc: stds-802-3-hssg
>> Subject: RE: Short haul PMDs
>>
>>
>>
>> Sharam-
>> I think 15 years is a slight exaggeration. 10BASE-T started
>as a Study
>> Group in August of 1987. It was the first group to have a 100 meter
>> objective.
>>
>> Before 10BASE-T there was the following:
>> 10BASE5 + AUI The AUI cable was 50 meters max
>> 10BASE2 The coax was daisy-chained w/ an overall max of 185m
>> 1BASE5 (StarLAN) The hub to DTE distance was 250 m
>> 10BROAD36 Broadband diameter of 2800 meters
>> FOIRL 1000 meter links
>> The point here is that topology has evolved as well as speed.
>> We have in the recent past had a distance objective for
>short cables in
>> 802.3z (ref: 1000BASE-CX).
>>
>> The 100 meter distance history is rooted in facilities cabling and is
>based
>> on the (literally) cast-in-concrete distance of 90 m max
>from the cabling
>> closet to the telecommunications outlet.
>>
>> If the prime market for an Ethernet project is not oriented to
>> "in-the-wall" cabling then the 100 meter distance is not
>sacrosanct. The
>> objective for 100 meters as approved in York was for
>"installed" cabling
>> from ISO/IEC 11801. That means that we were talking about generic
>> facilities cabling at the time, not application specific cabling.
>>
>> If we do go to application specific cabling then we have to do the
>> specification in our own standard instead of referencing an outside
>cabling
>> standard such as ISO/IEC 11801.
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>>
>> At 11:16 AM 8/2/00 -0400, Hakimi, Sharam (Sharam) wrote:
>>
>> >During the past 15 years and through all of 802.3 distance
>Objectives,
>100
>> >meters has been the minimum and essentially the trademark
>of IEEE 802.3.
>> >There has always been discussions that if the distance is
>reduced we can
>> >provide less expensive PHYs, but the cost difference never justified
>> >development of these PHYs . Providing 100 meter solutions does not
>prevent
>> >anyone from using a 10, 20, 30 or other length cables as their needs
>> >require. However, if time has come that the cost difference
>between a 100
>> >meter solution and something less will justify such
>development then we
>> >could look at it later, but changing the objectives at this
>time is a BAD
>> >idea in my opinion.
>> >
>> >Sharam Hakimi
>>
>