Re: Optical Connectors
Joel,
I wish it would be as simple as it sounds from your note. The SFF have
become popular mainly due to massive GBIC implementation where size was of
critical importance. I am not sure if the SFF footprint (not a pigtail)
would suit the 1550 uncooled laser as an example.
Furthermore, the SFF connector's are not as popular yet within the premises
cabling industry, represented mainly by the component manufacturers, as you
may think. Numerous attempts to standardize neither one or all of the SFF
connectors by the ISO/IEC WG3 (ISO 11801 2-nd edition) have failed including
latest attempt at the June '00 plenary meeting in a country by country vote
of 10:4. This is roughly 75%.
Based on the above I'd suggest, as stated in my previous notes, to stay with
the duplex SC and specify the SFF connectors, as documented by the Fibre
Channe,l in the informative Annex XX. This would fulfill the compliance
requirement with ISO 11801 and be the quickest, and safest way I think, to
satisfy all.
Cheers,
Tad
----- Original Message -----
From: Joel Goergen <joel@force10networks.com>
To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: Optical Connectors
>
> Rich,
>
> I agree with the second part from Tad, as I outlined when I suggested we
refer to
> other standards groups. But the first part I disagree with. Had we known
back
> then that SFF components would be so popular, I don't believe the SC would
be
> listed, or the only one listed. I reckon my question was "is there a
solution
> today that beter suits us then the SC?" I just don't buy the arguement
"If it
> ain't broke, don't fix it" for this case. I really thing we should be
looking at
> the SFF packaging right off the bat.
>
> Take care
> Joel
> ----------------------
>
> Rich Taborek wrote:
>
> > Joel,
> >
> > The flip side is that the SC has worked for Gigabit Ethernet just fine
> > and multiple SFF connectors are being used in GbE equipment anyway. Once
> > again: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> >
> > If this isn't good enough, I suggest that a second best alternative is
> > to specify the SC and also do as Tad Szostak of 3M suggests in his note
> > on this thread:
> > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02933.html. In
> > that note, Tad suggests cross referencing other standards such as:
> > ISO/IEC WG3 11801 - International Premises Cabling Standard
> >
> > "2-nd edition of the 11801 draft standard scheduled for completion first
> > quarter of 2001 specifies at the TO duplex SC only. It allows use of the
> > SFF (Small Form Factor) connectors anywhere else for as long as: a) they
> > are standardized by the IEC 86B and b) are of the RJ-45 outline at the
> > TO.
> >
> > At the bottom of my list would be to "hear more from the fiber suppliers
> > and the components people on this issue regarding their thoughts on pros
> > and cons of a particular connector or specification system." This, in
> > essence, is a connector war. Been there many time, done that many times.
> > It's extremely counter productive to a standards process.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > Joel Goergen wrote:
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I thought about this for a few days, and I am not sure we should adopt
the SC
> > > for 10gigE ( and I know .... no one is specifically saying we should).
Other
> > > connector options are more attractive to higher port count systems
that are
> > > robust. It won't be long, based on past experience, when we will have
large
> > > port count 10gigE systems. I feel we should start with a connector
that
> > > makes sense to use, as I believe others have been saying, at least
some of
> > > the others on this thread.
> > >
> > > I would like to hear more from the fiber suppliers and the components
people
> > > on this issue regarding their thoughts on pros and cons of a
particular
> > > connector or specification system. I would rather not just refer to
some
> > > other standards group for the connector type. I just feel we should
pick one
> > > and reference a standards group, too. It seemed to work well in
802.3z.
> > >
> > > Take care
> > > Joel
> > > -------------------
> > >
> > > Howard Frazier wrote:
> > >
> > > > I love free food, and the optical component manufacturers always put
on
> > > > a nice spread.
> > > >
> > > > What's so bad about connector wars, anyway? Connector wars have
gotten
> > > > a bad rap because they have been bungled so badly by inept standards
> > > > committees. Consider what we did in 802.3z:
> > > >
> > > > 0) We adopted the SC and the DB-9 as the baseline connectors for
802.3z
> > > > in November, 1996 in Vancouver.
> > > > CUT HERE
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > 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@nSerial.com
> > Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com
>
> --
> Joel Goergen
> Force10 Networks
> 1440 McCarthy blvd
> Milpitas, Ca, 95035
>
> Email: joel@force10networks.com
> Direct: (408) 571-3694
> Cell: (612) 670-5930
> Fax: (408) 571-3550
>
>
>