RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
At the Montreal meeting (July 1999), when the distance objectives were
debated and voted upon, there weren't any claims that a serial 10-GBd PMD
could support 100m on installed fiber. The reason that the objective
survived the vote was that at the time there were 2 proposed PMD
alternatives that could satisfy the objective: 1300 nm WWDM and 5-Gsym/s
PAM-5. The second multimode objective was first voted on as "300-m over
installed MMF". While this had strong support from the system vendors and
received over 60% of the vote, it failed to receive a 75% majority, due to
opposition from PMD and fiber vendors who pointed out that 1300-nm WWDM was
the only PMD that could support this objective. When the word "installed"
was removed from the objective, the objective received the necessary
majority. It was understood at the time that this objective was
deliberately left ambiguous.
Brian E. Lemoff, Ph.D.
LAN/MAN Optical Technologies
3500 Deer Creek Rd., MS 26M-9
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1392
phone: (650) 485-8957
FAX: (650) 485-3626
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 6:37 AM
> To: Paul Bottorff; Booth, Bradley; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits of Parallel Optics.
> As part of the distance Ad Hoc, I was under the impression
> that the 300m
> objective was for new technology MMF in the building risers.
> The Ad Hoc
> was told that 100m over "installed" MMF was feasable at a
> symbol rate of
> over 10Gb, equivalent to the proposed 850nm serial PMD. Were we
> mislead? I don't know. As a customer participating in this
> process and
> going back to looking at the most likely areas of initial
> and the implementation practices, I am the more serious about
> holding the
> people that said that they could do the serial 850nm PMD to
> their implied
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> At 01:33 PM 7/27/00 -0700, Paul Bottorff wrote:
> >I also understand our objectives in the same way. We don't have an
> >objective for 100 m computer room connections. It seems to
> me the 300 m
> >objective was written for computer rooms. The 300 m over MMF
> could be
> >applied to any fiber solution.
> >At 12:55 PM 7/27/2000 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >> From my understanding of the objectives, the task force
> doesn't have a
> >>distance objective of "100m data center applications." We
> do have an
> >>objective for 100m over installed MMF fiber. That 100m
> distance objective
> >>was chosen because it reflects what is used in the data
> center applications.
> >>If the task force satisfies the objective (which is a
> requirement for the
> >>task force to do), then we provide a solution for the
> application. The
> >>reverse is not true. If task force satisfies the
> application, then we don't
> >>meet our objectives.
> >>Given that the task force has to satisfy objectives first
> and foremost, I
> >>believe that it is key that the task force focus on those
> proposals that in
> >>some manner satisfy an objective. As I see it, parallel
> optics and parallel
> >>fiber do not satisfy any of our objectives; therefore, the
> task force needs
> >>to work on the ones that will satisfy our objectives.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ghiasi [mailto:Ali.Ghiasi@Eng.Sun.COM]
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 2:17 PM
> >> To: email@example.com;
> >> Cc: Ali.Ghiasi@Eng.Sun.COM
> >> Subject: RE: Equalization and
> benefits of Parallel
> >> Brad
> >> > From: "Booth, Bradley" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> > To: email@example.com
> >> > Subject: RE: Equalization and benefits
> of Parallel Optics.
> >> > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:29:56 -0700
> >> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >> > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients
> >> > X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
> >> > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to
> >> > X-Moderator-Address:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I have one question:
> >> >
> >> > Which of our distance objectives is
> satisfied with
> >>parallel fiber and
> >> > parallel optics?
> >> The 100 m data center applications.
> >> >
> >> > It has been my interpretation that when
> we talked about
> >>100m of installed
> >> > base of MMF, that we were referring to
> the MMF fiber
> >>currently available for
> >> > use by 802.3z. Parallel optics does not
> operate over this
> >>installed base.
> >> You are correct parallel optics would not
> operate over an
> >>installed two fiber
> >> plant. Parallel optics would loose if you
> go in to an
> >>installed fiber base.
> >> What I suggested was 100m data center
> applications, where
> >>the fiber are not
> >> installed in the building wiring.
> >> Data center application are very
> significant as stated in
> >>the last meeting
> >> about half the total market. Solutions
> significantly lower
> >>cost targeted
> >> for sub 100 m is needed, otherwise there
> will several
> >>proprietary solutions.
> >> Parallel optics is the lowest cost, almost
> mature after 3
> >>years, lowest power,
> >> and smallest foot print. Parallel optics
> is ideal to get
> >>bandwidth off the
> >> edge of your board.
> >> Serial 850 or CWDM 850 can be another
> candidate for low cost
> >>data center
> >> applications by having cable advantage
> over parallell fiber.
> >>But you need
> >> to offset fiber advantage against power,
> size, cost,
> >>testing, and maturity.
> >> >
> >> > Or am I missing the point here?
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Brad
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ali Ghiasi
> >> Sun Microsystems
> >> >
> >Paul A. Bottorff, Director Switching Architecture
> >Enterprise Solutions Technology Center
> >Nortel Networks, Inc.
> >4401 Great America Parkway
> >Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
> >Tel: 408 495 3365 Fax: 408 495 1299 ESN: 265 3365
> >email: pbottorf@NortelNetworks.com