Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
Geoff,
Shouldn't the migration to ULH systems have any impact on the spacing
and hence be taken into consideration? Or is that beyond the scope for
now?
Aaron Dudek
(703) 689-6879
Sprintlink Engineering
adudek@sprint.net
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Geoff Thompson wrote:
> Roger-
>
> At 03:47 AM 8/22/2006 , Roger Merel wrote:
>
> Agree with Drew. Have a few additional comments on other reachs:
>
> For reach objectives, we should start with customer based needs (for broad market potential) and only amend if an
> obvious technical limitation with compelling economics can t readily meet the broad customer need.
>
> Specifically:
>
> - Long Reach probably should be set at 80km rather than 100km (as this is the common hut-to-hut amplifier spacing
> in telecom)
>
> - While 50m does serve a useful portion of the market (smaller datacenters and/or the size of a large computer
> cluster), it is somewhat constraining as I ve been lead to understand that the reach needed in larger datacenters
> is continuing to out-grow the 100m meter definition but the 100m definition at least serves the customer well.
> Certainly 10G-BaseT worked awfully hard to get to 100m (for Datacenter interconnect).
>
>
> I wouldn't attach a lot of creedence to the 10GBASE-T goal for 100 meters. It was, I believe, mainly driven by the
> traditional distance in horizontal (i.e. wiring closet to desktop) distances rather than any thorough examination of data
> center requirements.
>
> Geoff
>
>
> - For both in-building reaches (50m & 300m; or 100m & 300m), the bigger issue which affects the PMD is the loss
> budget arising from the number of patch panels. The shorter / datacenter reach should include a budget for 1
> patch panel. The longer / enterprise reach should include a budget for 2 patch panels (one in the datacenter and
> 1 in the remote switch closet).
>
>
>
>
> From: Drew Perkins [mailto:dperkins@INFINERA.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:24 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> I suggest dividing Metro into Metro Short Reach at 10 km (equivalent application to 10GBASE-LR) and Metro
> Intermediate Reach at 40 km (equivalent application to 10GBASE-ER).
>
>
>
> Drew
>
> _____________________________
>
>
>
> Drew Perkins
>
> Chief Technology Officer
>
> Infinera Corporation
>
> 1322 Bordeaux Drive
>
> Sunnyvale, CA 94089
>
>
>
> Phone: 408-572-5308
>
> Cell: 408-666-1686
>
> Fax: 408-904-4644
>
> Email: dperkins@infinera.com
>
> WWW : http://www.infinera.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> From: John DAmbrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@FORCE10NETWORKS.COM]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:38 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
>
>
>
> All,
>
> We have had some conversation on the reflector regarding reach objectives. Summarizing what has been discussed
> on the reflector I see the following
>
>
>
> Reach Objectives
>
> Long-Haul --> 100+ km
>
> Metro --> 10+ km
>
> Data Center --> 50m & 300m
>
>
>
> Data Center Reach Segregation
>
> Intra-rack
>
> Inter-rack
>
> Horizontal runs
>
> Vertical risers
>
>
>
> Use this data to identify a single low-cost solution that would address a couple of the reach objectives
>
>
>
> Other Areas
>
> During the course of the CFI there were individuals who wanted Backplane Applications kept in for consideration,
> but I have not heard any further input in this area. Are there still individuals who wish to propose Backplane
> as an objective?
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>