Re: Cable standards question

[Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Lassoff" <jof () thejof com>

> I'd agree with this. I wouldn't worry about the standard so much as the
> practical aspects of a run. Once you have an idea of the approximate
> distance of the run, you can figure out which optics you plan on
> using. This will determine what physical connectors you'll need and what your
> approximate link budget will be.
>
> Based on that information, you can figure out which type to ask for
> (9um/125um single-mode, most likely), a range of path loss that you're
> comfortable with, and the physical termination you'd like at either
> end.

You Jon people[1] are, as near as I can tell, answering a question the OP didn't
actually ask.  It may in fact be that he didn't realize he should spec the 
design down to that level, but it sounded to me like what he was looking for
was "what language should I put in there to constrain the quality of the
implementation?"

Cheers,
-- jra
[1] :-)
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274