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

RE: [802.3ae] Bad idea...not including FP laser in PMD

I agree with Bob's response from a process perspective and would like to take this opportunity to address the market issues which you raise.
The IEEE P802.3ae draft standard currently provides multiple solutions for short reach links. Depending on your definition of "short", either 850 nm VCSEL, 1310 nm VCSEL, 1310 nm DFB or 1310 nm CWDM solutions adequately cover all customer distance and fiber type requirements with significant overlap. I'm unaware of any significant change since this decision, but I have seen a huge discounting of highly integrated 10G optical module solutions relative to the timeframe of the decision. Looking into the future, vendors are already addressing short reach links with more compact optical module solutions which will adequately and economically meet customer requirements. I beg to differ with you on your statement that: "Customers don't care how many PMDs". This is not what I've heard from any system supplier at IEEE 802.3ae Task Force meetings.
Lastly, I don't perceive that anything is "broken" with the current specification (of PMDs). This is usually the impetus for change. In my view, the PMDs specified in IEEE P802.3ae adequately and economically allow customers to deploy 10GbE equipment.
If you believe that you have enough support for a Call for Interest for a 10GbE 1310 nm FP PMD, the call must be initiated through IEEE 802.3, not 802.3ae.

Best Regards,
Richard Taborek Sr.                     Intel Corporation
XAUI Sherpa                    Intel Communications Group
3101 Jay Street, Suite 110    Optical Strategic Marketing
Santa Clara, CA 95054           Santa Clara Design Center
408-496-3423                                     JAY1-101
Cell: 408-832-3957          mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
Fax: 408-486-9783          
-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Kwong [mailto:nkwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 11:27 AM
To: Grow, Bob; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3ae] Bad idea...not including FP laser in PMD

Thanks for your quick response.  If it is a right thing to do, it never be too late.  Imagine if majority of the short reach link deployed in next few years are using FP lasers and it is not covered by the standard, it will go down to the history book that the committee did not do a good job of serving the industry.  Since the committee discussed and make the decision a long time ago, many things have been changed. Many technologies promised to deliver low cost products have not done it yet for variety of reasons.  FP lasers has been available and always be available to serve the industry.  There are concern of too many PMDs in the standard, the keys is how many PMD are low cost and can deliver in volume.  Customers don't care how many PMDs, all they care is how they can get parts that can do the job, cheap and reliable.  I'd urge the committee should initiate a call for interest for this topic.  Thanks
Norman Kwong
Archcom Technology
Office: 626-969-0681 x121
1335 W. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
----- Original Message -----
From: Grow, Bob
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: RE: [802.3ae] Bad idea...not including FP laser in PMD

It is too late to add major functionality you describe to the 802.3ae project.  As you point out, the committee discussed the topic and made its decision a long time ago.  The P802.3ae draft has completed Working Group and is in the final stages of Sponsor ballot.  The addition you propose is outside the scope of the current Sponsor recirculation ballot and therefore should not be considered by the P802.3ae Task Force.

Bob Grow 
Chair, IEEE 802.3 Working Group

Intel, EC2-101
13290 Evening Creek Drive
San Diego, CA  92128

phone: 858-391-4622
mobile: 858-705-1829
fax:   858-391-4580

-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Kwong [mailto:nkwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:23 PM
To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Norman Kwong
Subject: [802.3ae] Bad idea...not including FP laser in PMD

Dear 802.3ae members

            I understand that this is an old topic, but I still strongly believe that it is a bad idea not to include 1310 nm Fabry-Perot (FP) lasers in the PMD.  Let me re-cap some of the advantages of FP lasers:

  1. Low cost comparing to DFB lasers: high yield single-growth wafer process, less sensitive to back reflection that eliminates the need for isolator in package.  (1.3 VCSEL yield/cost is not clear now, therefore it is hard to compare.)
  2. Edge emitting lasers (FP and DFB) are more mature technology and have been deployed in market for many years.  Both lasers are available today through multiple vendors.
  3. FP laser can handle at least 0 to 2km (some test even indicate 7km is possible). And majority of the 10G Ethernet applications fall into this range.
  4. Some companies are shipping transceiver/transponder products using 1310 FP lasers today, but unfortunately they are being treated as non-802.3ae standard products.

The current 1310 PMD specification has a 30 dB SMSR spec that prohibits the use of FP lasers.  I believe that it is to the best interest of our industry to standardize a PMD based on 1310 nm FP lasers.  If there is a way to start a new project or modify the current specifications to include FP lasers, I'll love to lead an effort on it.


Norman Kwong


Archcom Technology

Office: 626-969-0681 x121