|
Posted by Rich Seifert on December 10, 2007, 10:46 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Thanks Rich for your reply and your time, it helps me.
>
> Could I take the opportunity to have your opinion for 2 questions?
>
> (1) I realized that the family 100Base-T has included 100Base-FX. So
> it is difficult to say that the T of 100Base-T is refering (in this
> case) to "twisted pair". Can we consider that it is just an enlargment
> ot the naming?
>
Yes; a triumph of marketing over engineering. (The widespread success of
10BASE-T at the time we were developing the 100 Mb/s version made the
use of "100BASE-T" almost a foregone conclusion; the world instantly
understood what it was--a faster version of what they already had.)
> (2) For the 100 Mbit/s EFM, we have 100Base-LX10 and 100Base-BX10. I
> suppose they have been IEEE approved with 802.3ah in 2004.
>
> Have you heard of G.985 that also described, in march 2003, an optical
> Ethernet 100 Mbit/s access? This is a specification for a
> bidirectional transmission on a fiber, downlink 1480 to 1580 nm, and
> uplink 1260 to 1360 nm.
>
> It's curious for me that IEEE specifies, with 100Base-BX10, a similar
> technology to ITU-T G.985, just one year later? Have you pleased some
> information about that?
>
I have not been following the goings-on either in EFM or ITU G.985, so I
can't comment.
--
Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
21885 Bear Creek Way
(408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
(408) 228-0803 FAX
Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map