| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Frank, I do not mean for OM4 to be part of the
baseline solution. I certainly am
not suggesting tightening the TX specs for the baseline solution, since that
would increase the cost of the baseline solution. Jeff ———————————————— Jeffery J. Maki, Ph.D. Principal Optical
Engineer Juniper Networks, Inc. Voice +1-408-936-8575 FAX +1-408-936-3025 www.juniper.net ———————————————— From: Frank Chang
[mailto:ychang@xxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Jeff; 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. Frank From: Jeff Maki
[mailto:jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx] 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 con Not Acceptable: 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) Acceptable: 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. Sincerely, Jeffery Maki ———————————————— Jeffery J. Maki, Ph.D. Principal Optical Engineer Juniper Networks, Inc. Voice +1-408-936-8575 FAX +1-408-936-3025 www.juniper.net ———————————————— |