|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Thanks for your comment. You missed one critical point that there is cost increase from OM3 to OM4. If you take ribbon cable cost in perspective, OM4 option is possibly the largest of the 4 options.
Besides, the use of OM4 requires to tighten TX specs which impact TX yield, so you are actually compromising the primary goal.
From: Jeff Maki [mailto:jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] XR ad hoc Phone Conference Notice
Dear MMF XR Ad Hoc Committee Members,
I believe our current objective of
“at least 100 meters on OM3 MMF” should remain as a primary goal, the
baseline. Support for any form of extended reach should be
1. Cost increase for the baseline PMD (optic) in order to obtain greater than 100-meter reach
2. EDC on the system/host board in any case
3. CDR on the system/host board as part of the baseline solution
4. EDC in the baseline PMD (optic)
5. CDR in the baseline PMD (optic)
1. Use of OM4 fiber
2. Process maturity that yields longer reach with no cost increase
In summary, we should not burden the baseline solution with cost increases to meet the needs of an extended-reach solution.
Jeffery J. Maki, Ph.D.
Principal Optical Engineer
Juniper Networks, Inc.