RE: Signal vs. Idle debate (was: Here's a new idea)
I give up, I'm jumping in. It's hard to read all of this and not comment.
Many doubt it will be a defacto standard because it has not been shown to
be robust enough, there is not one solution for mid-span powering, and many
of us are finding the announcement is only confusing customers and I
suspect making them shy away from any adoption, or even experiments, until
IEEE has a standard. I believe historically in Ethernet any solutions at
odds with the IEEE standards have a limited market size and life. Things
change, but "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
In Ethernet IEEE standards have history on their side.
At 02:22 AM 5/5/2000 MDT, Paul Yew wrote:
>Iíve just joined the group, so this may be out of line.
>IMHO, it seems that what IEEE decides may not matter. While IEEE debates the
>method that "should" be used to provide power down Ethernet cabling, Cisco,
>the leader in the industry, has announced what the solution is. Long before
>IEEE ever gets a standard agreed to and published, the following products
>will be widely used and any standard that doesnít support this de facto
>implementation will simply be ignore.
>If you refer to
>will find the basic specifications for Ciscoís Catalyst Inline power Patch
>Panel. This device does mid span power insertion on pins 4&5 and 7&8.
>If you refer to
>you will find the basic specifications for Ciscoís Catalyst 6000 switch
>family which powers endpoints over pins 1&2 and 3&6.
>Based on these products, Cisco has determined that endpoints will have to be
>able to be powered from the signal and/or idle wire pairs.
>Obviously Cisco has determined a viable solution so why not accept it?
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com