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

RE: PAM5 Objectives


See my comments below.



N. Patrick Kelly
Engineering Manager
Strategic Silicon Labs
Level One Communications, an Intel Company

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Jaime Kardontchik [SMTP:kardontchik.jaime@xxxxxxxxxxx]
	Sent:	Wednesday, March 29, 2000 9:55 AM
	To:	'stds-802-3-hssg-pam@xxxxxxxx'
	Subject:	Re: PAM5 Objectives


	There is not such shared objective of "the PAM-5 group" to
	abandon the 802.3ae Task Force and promote the formation
	of another PAR and Task Force.

	I may have overstated the purpose of the objectives.  However, given
the data presented by Rich in yesterday's conference call, it seems clear to
me that a PAM5 solution remaining part of 802.3ae after July is a long-shot.
If this is true, then we should be preparing now for the likelihood that the
only way PAM5 is going to continue is with a separate PAR.

	There are people within the PAM-5 proponents, mainly
	those identified with the "PAM-5 serial at 5 Gbaud" ,
	that understand that their proposal is very incomplete,
	has serious question marks on it and will not meet the
	tight schedule of the 802.3ae. Some of them has also
	expressed second thoughts about whether to stay with
	1300 nm (to keep their promise of reaching 500 meters
	on the installed MMF) or switch to 850 nm lasers to
	be cheaper (in which case their maximum reach, according
	to their presentations would be only 160 meters, after
	all the pre- and post-equalization schemes).

	The proponents of the "850nm-4WDM-1.25 Gbaud"
	proposal plan to stay in the 802.3ae and meet the schedule
	of the 802.3ae.

	The 802.3ae decided in its last meeting in Albuquerque
	that the decision of which proposals will be included within
	the "7 lucky proposals" will be taken only in the July 2000
	meeting. Till then, all the proposals on the Table, including
	the PAM-5 proposals, are equally valid and will be considered
	and discussed by the 802.3ae.

	Agreed, but July is not very far away and there is little support
for PAM5 in the committee.  The PAM5 group either needs to increase the
amount of support dramatically, decide on asking for a separate PAR, or pack
our bags and go home.

	I would suggest to avoid in the future sending to the
	IEEE Reflectors these type of "resolutions" and
	"communications" that can only confuse the Task Force
	members at large, and keep the contents of the IEEE 802.3ae
	Reflectors technical and in sync with the objectives of the 802.3ae.

	I heard no dissent yesterday when I received the AR to put together
a first cut of the objectives for the group and send it out on the PAM5
reflector.  Obviously, communication regarding the PAM5 objectives is valid
on the PAM5 reflector.  However, you may have a valid point regarding my
assumption that the objectives were specifically geared towards application
for a separate PAR.  I withdraw that assumption for now, but I ask that the
first item on the agenda for the next conference call be direction of the
group, i.e. continue in ae, separate PAR, or go home.


	Jaime E .Kardontchik
	Micro Linear
	San Jose, CA 95131

	"Kelly, Pat" wrote:

	> All:
	> Below is a first cut of the objectives intended for use in
justification of
	> a PAM5 PAR.  I tried to simplify the list from the Albuquerque
meeting to
	> sharpen our message.
	> -       Provides significantly lower cost over proposed installed
	> solutions
	> -       <1/2 of the cost of proposed WWDM solutions
	> -       support for up to 300m of installed 62.5um MMF
	> -       Prototypes demonstrated by 802.3ae sponsor ballot
	> -       Allows scalability to 40gig using WWDM (then 80/100gig?)
	> -       XAUI compatible
	> -       Form factor supports high port-count implementations
	> I look forward to everyone's comments.
	> Regards,
	> Pat
	> N. Patrick Kelly
	> Engineering Manager
	> Strategic Silicon Labs
	> Level One Communications, an Intel Company
	> (916)854-2955