RE: Optical Connectors
Geoff,
I appologize if I have stepped over the edge here. I find that the only
way to bring truth to the miss-representations of companies like Lucent is
to state specifics. I was specifically answering a statement imputed to
Lucent about their install base of a particular component giving a false
impression of its general use. As I do not have any financial interest in
any connector vendor, I can not be accused of attempting to obtain a
financial gain from my comments. I will, however, be a little more
circumspect in the future.
Thank you for the warning,
Roy Bynum
At 03:30 PM 7/27/00 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Roy-
>
>Discussions of what particular customer is getting how much of a
>particular product and whether or not any particular customer's
>requirements "should" drive the standard is NOT APPROPRIATE from an
>anti-trust point of view on an IEEE reflector. If you wish to take on the
>risk of this sort of line of reasoning please take it off of the reflector.
>
>Please restrict your reflector conversations on market to more general
>terms or even better yet to the technical virtues and vices of a
>particular approach.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Geoff
>
>
>At 04:18 PM 7/27/00 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
>
>>Chris,
>>
>>Lucent marketing is probably correct in saying that they have been
>>shipping LC connectors for years and that there are several K in the
>>field. You have to remember who Lucent was formerly a part of,
>>AT&T. AT&T has been and continues to be the primary customer for Lucent
>>equipment including the LC connectors. Lucent is attempting to expand
>>their customer base. However, every time that we look at something from
>>Lucent, their primary customer's requirements are reflected more than
>>anything else.
>>
>>Lucent is only one vendor among many. No other vendors, except for a few
>>startups, have been bringing equipment into the lab that have LC
>>connectors. Even most of the startups are not using LC connectors. AT&T
>>is a BIG customer, but it is only one customer. You need to take the
>>Lucent marketing comments in context with where their market has been and
>>continues to be. Just because AT&T uses LC connectors on Lucent
>>equipment does not mean that everyone else does, or should.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Roy Bynum
>>
>>
>>At 09:14 AM 7/27/00 -0600, Chris Simoneaux wrote:
>>
>>>Roy,
>>>I would request Lucent to chime in here...but my understanding from their
>>>marketing guys is that they've been shipping LC connector systems for years,
>>>and 100's of K's of LC connectors are deployed in the field. Most (or all)
>>>being in singlemode applications.
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@mindspring.com]
>>>Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 7:48 PM
>>>To: Chris Simoneaux; HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
>>>Subject: RE: Optical Connectors
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris,
>>>
>>>I am not sure of your comment about LC having a proven track record for
>>>single mode implementations. At present, WorldCom has not deployed any
>>>LC. All of the connectors currently specified for SM installations is
>>>SC. A particular vendor is attempting to get WorldCom to make use of their
>>>connectors. ( I will not say how successful or not they are. ) Several
>>>system vendors are attempting to make use of LC, but at present, none have
>>>been certified. Given the form factor that would use XAUI, SFF connectors
>>>would not be a requirement.
>>>
>>>Thank you,
>>>Roy Bynum
>>>
>>>
>>>At 04:28 PM 7/21/00 -0600, Chris Simoneaux wrote:
>>>
>>> >Our opinion is that LC is a better connector than MTRJ. The LC does not
>>> >seem to suffer the possible damage that MTRJ can see with high mate/demate
>>> >cycles...due to the guide pin action. Also, the LC has a proven track
>>> >record for singlemode whereas the MTRJ does not.
>>> >
>>> >PS: My feeling is the standards body's charter should be to specify a
>>> >connector. However, there's too much rhetoric in the procedure. Therefore
>>> >it's difficult to choose the best solution. Inevitably the real winner/s
>>> >will come forward. Conclusion: Choose a connector at the standards
>>> level as
>>> >it can expose good points of each solution.
>>> >
>>> >Chris Simoneaux
>>> >Picolight
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@mindspring.com]
>>> >Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 12:09 PM
>>> >To: Jonathan Thatcher; HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
>>> >Subject: Re: Optical Connectors
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Jonathan,
>>> >
>>> >In spite of what Lucent wants, the LC connector does not have the market
>>> >support that MTRJ does. MTRJ also has a smaller form factor than does
>>> >LC. I don't like and am specifying the non-use of LC on transmission gear
>>> >because of the fragile "lock" tab that is on the connector.
>>> >
>>> >Thank you,
>>> >Roy Bynum
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >At 08:48 AM 7/18/00 -0700, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>>> > >I have opened this thread to continue the discussion on optical
>>> > >connectors. So far (what has come into my reader), we have the following
>>> > >comments:
>>> > >
>>> > >-----------------------
>>> > >"Bill Wiedemann: Regarding 850CWDM we are planning to make first
>>> > >implementations with duplex SC moving to LC with small form factors. Our
>>> > >expectation is that small form factor with LC could be available a year
>>> > >from today. "
>>> > >-----------------------
>>> > >"Jim Tatum: I would assume that 802.3ae would do the same as 802.3z, and
>>> > >NOT specify conectors. "
>>> > >-----------------------
>>> > >"Ed Chang: There are so many different form factors, and connectors,
>>>which
>>> > >even the GbE and Fibre Channel market can not get consensus."
>>> > >-----------------------
>>> > >
>>> > >If we review the 802.3 Ethernet specification, we see that we have
>>> > >identified connectors for each variant (I don't remember an exception).
>>> > >For example:
>>> > >7.6.2 AUI Configuration cable
>>> > >9.9.5.2 Optical for repeaters
>>> > >...
>>> > >38.11.3 MDI = Duplex SC for GigE Optics
>>> > >39.5.1 MDI = Style 1 (DB9) and Style 2 for GigE Cu
>>> > >
>>> > >While I remember no rules that require us to do so, it seems obvious
>>> that
>>> > >there exists a precedent which should guide our decision.
>>> > >
>>> > >In 802.3z, we specifically took a vote to avoid connector discussions
>>> > >("connector wars")**. We could do the same in 802.3ae. If we did, I
>>> would
>>> > >argue that we would, effectively, be retaining the duplex SC optical
>>> > >connector specified in clause 38.
>>> > >
>>> > >My PERSONAL preference would be to specify the LC connector. Rationale:
>>> > >1. There seems to be an overall inclination to move in that direction.
>>> > >2. It sets the stage for some kind of "Small Form Factor" 10 Gig
>>> >transceiver.
>>> > >3. I don't think that it would negatively impact the cost of the
>>> > >transceiver in the 2002 (standard completion time frame).
>>> > >
>>> > >As CHAIR, I don't want to use up any cycles on this. If there isn't
>>> > >sufficient consensus to agree on an alternative to the SC, we should
>>> just
>>> > >adopt the SC and move on.
>>> > >
>>> > >jonathan
>>> > >
>>> > >** In reality, this was bumped up to 802.3 because neither I (sub-chair
>>> > >for PMD) nor Howard (802.3z chair) wanted to use precious committee time
>>> > >for the discussion.
>>> > >
>>> > >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@worldwidepackets.com
>>> > >