Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10GMMF
On the other hand, there may be a reasonable mid-point worth considering.
Specifically, if the receive optical power requirements are compatible with
those of the existing longwave specification, then it may be possible to
implement a part that would work with both single mode and multimode fiber,
meeting the requirements for both PMD types.
If the specifications for MMF can be set so as to not intentionally restrict
this potential, an avenue can be left open to develop the dual use part.
Clearly, there may for be challenges creating such a part in terms of
meeting launch power (laser safety) requirements, etc.
There would also be challenges manufacturing a part that is competitive
against single use, MMF parts. But, we can probably presume that were such a
part available, systems companies would be willing to pay a small premium
for it. At very least, they would pay the same as the blended price of the
MMF and the SMF solutions based on their respective volumes. Due to the
relative simplicity in order-delivery, manufacture, inventory, etc, they
might find financial advantage and customer satisfaction enables a slightly
greater price than for the blended.
To this end, unless said specifications would significantly impact the
price, technical feasibility, or reliability of the 10GMMF parts, it would
be in the best interest of the industry to not impede the potential for a
dual use part.
Lest any misunderstand, this does not mean that the specification would be
for a dual use part. Logically speaking, "not dual use specification" does
not necessarily mean "required single use implementation."
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stds-802-3-10gmmf@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:stds-802-3-10gmmf@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Steve Haddock
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 11:34 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10GMMF
>
>
> Bruce, Val, and all:
>
> I'd also like to reaffirm that I support the decision to
> optimize for the
> lowest cost solution on MMF and not have an objective to support SMF.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@CISCO.COM]
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 8:21 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Feature Request for 10GMMF
>
>
> Val and all:
>
> To address the 2nd point Val made earlier in the thread in
> regard to SM
> fiber support.
>
> Just to clear, I still stand by the decision we made in the
> SG to support
> MM fiber only with the project. We started the discussions of
> the tradeoffs
> early on in the ad hoc which continued in the SG and all
> agreed that with
> the aim of a lower cost, simpler solution I we had to
> optimize the solution
> for MM fiber, both installed legacy MM fiber and the newer OM3 fiber.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> At 12:05 AM 7/16/2004 -0700, Val Oliva wrote:
> >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
>
>
> 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
>