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

Re: [EFM-Copper] RE: [EFM] (forward) progress in EFM copper


One IEEE 802.3 port type can achieve more than one PHY objective.

To have multiple port types is not necessarily a bad thing, IEEE802.3ae 
gave us seven port types for MM and SM fiber, IEEE802.3z gave us two port 
types (well three if you include 1000BASE-T).

Bruce Tolley

At 07:47 AM 6/12/2002 -0700, Daun Langston wrote:

>I strongly support this objective because it is reaches the distance I
>have been pushing for at 2500 meters and the rate is 500 Kbit slower
>than I have been asking for.  This is not hard to accomplish with the
>same port type.
>I do not support the intent for a separate port type to the PHY.  A
>separate port type is not Ethernet.  By a separate port type you are
>suggesting they would not interoperate.  Should we be the first copper
>Phy in Ethernet that does not interoperate?  Let's try to make it the
>same port type which suggests interoperability as some common rate.
>Two identical connectors in the same marketplace called Ethernet that do
>not interoperate at some basic speed is not really what folks now call
>Ethernet.  Ethernet always works at some level.
>Should we not try first to stick to the 802 rules?  I not just want to
>see this pass 802.3ah but I also want to see this pass 802.3.
>A single port type is very simple to accomplish.  Why don't we try this
>Daun Langston
>Metanoia Technologies, Inc.
>127 Mill Street
>Grass Valley, CA 95945
>POB 1843 Nevada City, CA 95959-1843
>daun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (SMS)
>+1 530 639-0311 office
>+1 512 698-0311 cell
>+1 530 671-0511 fax
>+1 530 273-4093 design center
>-----Original Message-----
>[] On Behalf Of Hugh
>Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:19 AM
>Subject: [EFM] (forward) progress in EFM copper
>I have been considering the possibilities for progress on the copper
>following the pointers that we got from the straw polls at the end of
>the Edinburgh
>interim. In particular I have been discussing a compromise with Dong Wei
>of SBC
>which would combine the short reach objective and VDSL baseline (which
>achieved consensus) with a longer reach objective (and associated
>baseline) to
>satisfy the needs of service providers that Dong has articulated. As a
>result of
>this discussion we have formulated some ideas which we have also
>discussed with
>some other copperheads and have reached what I like to call:
>"The Great Copper Compromise"
>In essence this can be summarized as: leave the short reach objective
>and VDSL
>baseline unchanged; add a new objective for longer reach along with a
>baseline solution that meets the objective.
>Based on discussions that I've had with a number of copper track (and
>other EFM)
>members I think that this compromise could add the support for two
>applications and get above the 75% threshold required for progress.
>Clearly this
>will only work if we can guarantee that everyone who has an interest in
>solution votes positively for both. I cannot emphasize enough that we
>aggregate all of the positive votes in Vancouver to keep the EFM effort
>Many people believe that the copper component is vital to the whole of
>EFM and that
>no market will develop for the fiber (or OAM) components of EFM if there
>is no
>copper edge.
>The objective that we have been discussing is:
>PHY for single pair non-loaded voice grade copper distance >= 2.7km
>speed >= 2Mbps
>full duplex.
>The intent is that this would be a separate port type to the PHY which
>meets the
>existing objective.
>Dong Wei has agreed to lead the development of a presentation which
>could be
>adopted as a baseline meeting this objective. It is crucial that we get
>support for this compromise, that means that we should attempt to
>maximize the
>number of people who review and support Dong's presentation. Please
>could you all
>consider working with Wei and adding your name as a supporter of his
>I will arrange a conference call (probably June 24th) before the
>With thanks for your attention,