Conference 7.286::fddi

    
    Remember that FDDI was meant to be based on existing Fiber cable plants
    like ORNET. The STP and Thinwire was to help the customer in using his
    existing cable plant for connection of devices in cubes and such.
    
    We never promised that customers would not have to run ANY fiber at
    all.
    
    MTS

OK, but what CDDI STP devices will Digital then offer to make use of our
STP capabilities on the concentrator???  ;^)

-- regards / Guy

ps I will be trying to get the latest PID, but any info I get help will
help...

    Guy,
       The FDDIcontroller 700c provides STP as well as Thinwire support.
    Also, other vendors, such as Network Peripherals Inc. are providing
    controllers for VME, EISA, etc. buses to connect to our STP version of
    the concentrator. As .1 said, there aren't any plans that I know of to
    provide STP on the DECbridge. Have you thought about using the
    low-power optics option of the CON if the customer is concerned about
    cost?
    
    Debbie
    

HI DEBBIE,
Thanx for your response; good to hear from you!

The customer is Sasktel.  They are still considering the pilot I spoke
to you about, and would dearly love to use the new STP stuff between
concentrator and bridge (as they are in the same building).

Does the bridge use low power optics?  Or do you use the regular multi-mode
optic stuff?


-- cheers,
   Guy

ps Are you still GIA?

    
    The Bridge has the normal MIC connector for 2km optics. You should be
    able to connect a Low Power card on the Concentrator to a MIC on the
    Bridge.
    
    Why in Gods name would you want to connect the bridge and concentrator
    via STP or thinwire. That would mean that the two devices could never
    be more than 100m apart from each other. Even if we did design such an
    interface for the Bridge, Nobody (Except Sasktel) would EVER buy it.
    
    If the Bridge is that close to the Concentrator, then you might as well
    purchase a DAS bridge and extend the ring to those locations.
    
    I realize that the customer has a want, but it doesn't sound like he
    has a thorough understanding of FDDI, other than its faster.
    
    MTS

Thanx for your comments!

Please comment on the design in 314.0.

The telco would love to play with STP if they could, but will settle
onthe low power stuff.

-- thanx / Guy

    RE:-.2
    
    I have designed a number of FDDI networks and thus far, it has always
    been necessary to place a FDDI bridge next to the concentrator. It would
    still be necessary if we had a DAS bridge at the time. For some strange
    reason, the building with the concentrator needs attachement to
    Ethernet too.
    
    Re: STP on the bridge
    
    I'd like to see a separate optical - copper adapter/converter. This
    would allow me the flexibility to use the media of choice on all
    products regardless of their integrated media connector.
    
    

>    I have designed a number of FDDI networks and thus far, it has always
>    been necessary to place a FDDI bridge next to the concentrator. It would
>    still be necessary if we had a DAS bridge at the time. For some strange
>    reason, the building with the concentrator needs attachement to
>    Ethernet too.
    
I am sorry, but you lost me on these 3 statements... but would really 
appreciate what you are trying to articulate?  

Are you saying that it would not make sense to put a bridge at the end of
a 100M or so STP? or perhaps would not work (even if we offered STP on 
the bridge???)

Why do you have to place a bridge next to a concentrator?  If we cannot
do STP that the customer will probably low speed optics.  And what would
the necessity whether or not we had a DAS bridge????

-- confused,
   Guy

    RE:.-1
    
    I was commenting on the comments made in .5. which asked why someone
    would want to locate a bridge next to a concentrator. This has little
    to do with your request for STP on the bridge.
    
    Sorry for the confusion.

    re: .4 
    
    Hi Guy,
      Yes, I'm still GIA. Let me know if you have any more questions
    concerning SASKTEL and their pilot.
    
    Debbie
    

    
    RE .7
    
    I don't understand this either. Just because your designs to date have
    required this doesn't mean all or any more will. I can think of many
    places where all that would be needed to service a department or work
    group would be a remote bridge and ethernet. Thats the beauty of having
    2km of fiber to play with on any SAS. The Concentrators can all be kept
    in a main wiring room with the bridges out in Office SER's that service
    floors or parts of floors. I again state that STP was meant to use
    existing STP cable plants. Running new STP with all of its problems as
    a main link (Concentrator to Bridge) leaves an entire ethernet segment
    and its users open to the common problems of copper based wiring. When
    running point to point (as in cubes or offices) a problem with the STP
    copper will only take down one station, not an entire work group or
    floor.
    
    AS you can tell, I am a strong supporter of fiber. After working with
    Thick, Thin and UTP copper wiring and its problems for years, I for one
    like the simplicity of fiber. If cost is an issue, go to THINWIRE, its
    the same performance and is even cheaper to install than STP...
    
    MTS

Sorry, I now understand why we offer STP.  By existing STP you mean STP
out to someone's cubicle/desk...  I must be suffering from too many paint 
fumes after painting my house...

-- thanx / Guy

    
    RE .12
    
    I know how you feel....
    
    MTS