RE: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
Hi Paul
> From: "Kolesar, Paul F (Paul)" <pkolesar@lucent.com>
> To: "'ghiasi'" <Ali.Ghiasi@eng.sun.com>
> Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
> Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:22:04 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
> Ali,
> I do not understand how you can be supportive of serial 850 nm
> technology in one context and against it in another.
I am supportive of 850 nm technology because I can operate a low cost VCSEL
at 10 Gb/s with only few mA.
You say "exploring 10
> Gb serial with 850 nm VCSEL over 50/125 um at 100 m satisfies critical
> market need at low cost." I agree. The same benefits apply to building
> backbones up to 300 m in length.
I am hesitant of pushing a new specialty fiber down the throat of my customers
every few years. The standard should define the nominal distance based on existing
multimode fiber, but individual manufactures may want to advertise extra reach with
the new high bandwidth fiber.
Why would I want to pull a new expensive high bandwidth multimode fiber, when it will be
lower cost to use the existing single mode fiber.
Finally how I am suppose to keep track of all these fibers in the field?
Thanks,
Ali Ghiasi
Sun Microsystems
>
> Paul Kolesar
>
> ----------
> From: ghiasi [SMTP:Ali.Ghiasi@Eng.sun.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 11:54 AM
> To: nuss@lucent.com; Kolesar, Paul F (Paul); avb@cisco.com
> Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org; Ali.Ghiasi@Eng.sun.com
> Subject: Re: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
>
>
> Hi Andy
>
> > Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 06:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Andreas Bechtolsheim <avb@cisco.com>
> > To: nuss@lucent.com, pkolesar@lucent.com
> > Subject: Re: (SSIG) Taking the winning route
> > Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org
> > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients
> <stds-802-3-hssg@majordomo.ieee.org>
> > X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
> > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
> > X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
> >
> >
> >
> > 850nm VCSELs for 10 GE require customers to deploy new
> high-bandwdith MMF.
> > I would recommend that PMD solutions are based on installed base
> MMF or SMF.
>
> I would agree that PMD solution should be based on existing MMF and
> SMF. At the cost of
> pulling new high bandwidth fiber, just pull SMF and operate at 1300
> nm.
>
> >
> > Specifying a PMD that implies a brand new MMF infrastructure is
> not
> > consistent with the goal of using existing technology wherever
> possible.
>
> But exploring 10 Gb serial with 850 nm VCSEL over 50/125 um at 100 m
> satisfies critical market
> need at low cost.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ali Ghiasi
>
> Sun Microsystems
>
>