Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10GMMF
Ahh another one of my biggest frustration and
customers (the end customer) are beginning to
see this issue.
The issue - 10GbE has too many MSAs
Albeit we know how to connect 10GbE together
regardless of MSAs, customers are confuse. In
addition, customers want only one MSA.
Why? It's cost.
For us system folks, the problem is cost as
well - what 10GbE boards do I need to build,
XENPAK, XFP, X2, ... it goes on and on.
Invest in the wrong board, wrong MSA, well,
we know what happens.
Again, the requirements for 10GMMF are as
follows:
1. Support a maximum distance of 300m.
2. Support single mode fiber.
Val Oliva
--- Eric Grann <ebgrann@ADUROINC.COM> wrote:
> All,
>
> If this 300m over installed FDDI fiber is the goal, why is the IEEE
> wasting
> time with an objective that doesn't address this. In fact, why is
> the IEEE
> wasting time on a PAR that duplicates a solution already ratified
> by the
> 802.3ae standard (10GBase-LX4). If the reason is the potential
> lower cost,
> I would argue this point as well. Multiple (more than 5) vendors
> are now
> designing and delivering LX4 transceivers (both XENPAK and X2). In
> fact,
> our company is delivering LX4 TOSA and LX4 ROSA optics to the
> market at
> costs that will easily meet the volume cost targets of the
> transceiver
> manufacturer's and the system vendors. Additionally,
> demonstrations have
> been shown by at least 2 companies that are working on LX4 VCSEL
> based
> solutions.
>
> From the schedule, it appears the LRM standard won't be ratified
> until 2006.
> It appears the IEEE is wasting time on something that Might be
> lower cost
> several years away. What happened to the rule of "One problem, one
> solution" in the IEEE. Doesn't this violate that goal.
>
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@CISCO.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:11 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10MMF
>
>
> To all LRMers
>
> Sorry I could not make it to Portland. This is the last month of
> our fiscal
> year and I am called by a higher power to focus on near term goals
> :)).
>
> To echo Val's first point, we have been shipping -ER, -LR and -SR
> to
> customers for some many months now. The relevant experience for the
> 300
> meter goal is not comparisons to 1000BASE-SX at this point, but
> experience
> with deployment of the shipping port types and talking to customers
> about
> all the existing and potential 10GBASE- port types.
>
> Customers are communicating a VERY strong requirement for 300
> meters on
> legacy and new MM fiber. To ignore this requirement is, at the very
> least,
> to neglect the broad market potential criterion. You may not agree
> with
> this requirement but I can tell you from personal experience it is
> the
> expectation today from the customers who want spend money on 10 Gb
> Ethernet.
>
> thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> At 11:13 PM 7/14/2004 -0700, Val Oliva wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >I want to be clear, as a system vendor, that the
> >following are clear customer requirements for this
> >standard:
> >
> >1. 10GMMF must support a maximum distance of 300m
> > (not 220m, which I hear from other optic vendors),
> > the maximum length for support of FDDI-grade fiber.
> >
> >2. Ability to support single mode fiber using the
> > same PHY or standard is critical as well.
> >
> >Please reply to voliva@foundrynet.com for further
> >questions about this requirement.
> >
> >Thank you. Val Oliva
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
> Bruce Tolley
> Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
> Gigabit Systems Business Unit
> Cisco Systems
> 170 West Tasman Drive
> MS SJ B2
> San Jose, CA 95134-1706
> internet: btolley@cisco.com
> ip phone: 408-526-4534
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail