The real decision regarding the use of a 10km vs. 2km PHY in our
network is cost. It seems that dividing the market would not serve to
keep the cost of either PHY down. I would really like to see us
minimize the number of PHYs.
Mike
Brad Booth wrote:
The 10km vs. 2km debate
occurred in 802.3ae. It was determined that the solution for 2km was
virtually the same as that for 10km; therefore, the task force felt it
would be better to select only one of those reaches and 10km was it.
If there is a desire for 2km and 10km reaches in HSSG, then in my
humble opinion, those wishing to support will need to bring
justification forward as to why the study group should consider
possibly increasing the number of PHYs.
Cheers,
Brad
John/Petar;
I agree datacenter for up to 100m. How
about 10GigE LR disctance (10km) or campus 2km
discussed earlier?
Frank
John,
I believe that the Data Center
distances should be 100m and 300m.
Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218 (mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134 (shipping)
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
e-mail: petarp@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax: (914)-945-4134
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
--
Michael J. Bennett
Sr. Network Engineer
LBLnet Services Group
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Tel. 510.486.7913
|