RE: [EFM] 100 Mbps Proposals
As was brought up in Raleigh, it has not been demonstrated that 100BASE-T4
meets the spectrum compatibility objective (and it is unlikely that it
does). Leaving aside the discussion as to how close installed POTS wiring
is to CAT3.
There may be MxU instances where spectrum compatibility is not required, and
instances where it would be. It is an adopted EFM objective, however.
Hillsboro, OR, USA
tel: +1 (503) 264-8579
From: larry rennie [mailto:Larry.Rennie@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:28 AM
To: Behrooz Rezvani
Cc: Bruce Tolley; email@example.com; Roy Bynum
Subject: Re: [EFM] 100 Mbps Proposals
Is not 100BASE-T4 100Mbits/sec over 4, Cu pairs?
Behrooz Rezvani wrote:
> if there is a success in starting such an effort, I would very much to
> encourage you and other people to consider 100 mbps over 4 copper pairs
> reach <xyz> meters. That has a lot more practical applications in MxU.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roy Bynum" <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Bruce Tolley" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [EFM] 100 Mbps Proposals
> > Bruce,
> > I am concerned about putting effort into developing a standard for
> > technology that already exists for a market that is current, not greatly
> > the future.
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> > At 07:48 PM 2/13/2002 -0800, Bruce Tolley wrote:
> > >Colleagues:
> > >
> > >Those of you who are also on the 802.3 reflector saw that there is call
> > >for interest on the agenda of the March meeting in St Louis to discuss
> > >starting a 100 Mbps dual fiber SM fiber project outside of 802.3ah task
> > >
> > >While I have not yet decided where I stand on 100 Mbps solutions for
> > >I wanted to communicate that I think this call for interest is
> > >I would strongly encourage the proponents of 100 Mbps on SM fiber to
> > >converge on one strong proposal for the March IEEE 802.3ah meeting.
> > >
> > >We are already facing the challenge of perhaps too many EFM PHYs. To
> > >specify an additional PHY for EFM outside of the 802.3ah TF only makes
> > >life more difficult.
> > >
> > >Bruce