Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space



Hi Pete,

 

1)      My impression was that Matt’s proposal was more general than for a 600m or 1000m reach interface. Since he is on the reflector, he can clarify what he meant.

2)      Sadly, you are exactly correct here to point out that a fully standard compliant interface could have the same max TDP at 10km and at 2km. This is actually not even contrived as positive dispersion helps DFB penalties below 1310nm. So sadly once again you have dashed our hopes of getting a free lunch. If we want to specify an alternate operating point, with a higher dispersion loss at lower reach, we would have to add a normative specification with a lower TDP at the shorter reach. L

 

Chris

 

From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:51 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space

 

Chris,

 

1)      This thread seems to be wandering somewhat off topic.  For the relatively short reaches that have been proposed on this thread, there wouldn’t be much reach related optical penalty to trade for loss if the reach was shorter still.

 

2)      For 100GBASE-LR4 the maximum loss of the link is not informative.  87.11 starts: “The 40GBASE–LR4 fiber optic cabling shall meet the specifications defined in Table 87–14”.  Table 87-14 includes:
“Channel insertion lossa, b(max)  6.7 dB”
“aThese channel insertion loss values include cable, connectors, and splices.”
“bOver the wavelength range 1264.5 nm to 1337.5 nm.”

Also, the effective TDP is allowed to be as low as 0.8 dB for a device with a low spectral penalty, so you cannot rely on the transmitter having spare power above the 6.7 dB channel loss unless the TDP is significantly more than the minimum allowed.

 

Regards,

Pete Anslow | Senior Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street | London, EC2A 2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535
|

 


ciena logo

From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 November 2011 14:55
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space

 

Hi Paul,


Good question. It is not yet in standards, but rather it is an example of an entry in the informative table that Matt proposed we add to future standards.


Specifically, the 100GE-LR4 link budget is 8.5dB, of which 6.3dB is loss budget which can be used in a variety of useful ways like going over SMF or through passive loss elements like path panels or cross-connects. There is also a 2.2dB allocation for penalties. That is one use scenario. The example I gave shows another use scenario. If an end user only needs a 2km reach, they have available in round numbers,~7dB of loss budget. Obviously if we were writing these numbers into the standard, we would be more precise.

 

Keep in mind that link budget itself is informative. The normative specs are TDP and SRS. So Matt’s proposal to add an informative link budget table is entire consistent with how we handle the single link budget entry today.

 

Chris

 

From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 5:29 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space

 

Chris,

Can you cite the location of the 2km / 7dB information in the standard?  I only find information on 30 km vs 40 km engineered link for –ER4. 
Paul

 


From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 3:31 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space

 

Matt,

Adding an informative table in future standards on reach vs. loss budget trade-off is an excellent idea. Many end users do this implicitly already, so they will benefit by having more exact numbers from those that write the standards.

For 100GE-LR4, this type of information is already informally provided, for example pointing out that for shorter reaches like ~2km, a ~7dB loss budget is available.

Chris

From: "Matt Traverso (mattrave)" <mattrave@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 20, 2011 12:36:21 PM EST
To: John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space

Colleagues,

John wrote: "Also one lesson that we should learn from recent industry debates -forget the reach- what is the desired budget?"

As Chris Cole & others have pointed out, the reach is dependent upon the transmission penalties as well as the link budget -- see discussion on wavelength pitch.  It might be a useful approach to consider trading off a scenario where the amount of additional insertion loss (connectors, splices etc) versus distance.

For example, we could set an objective of 1km with 2dB of insertion loss (no significance -- I just pulled it out of the ether).  Then we could provide an informative table which could highlight at 500m reach the allowable insertion loss is 2dB + X.  Alternately, we could provide a scenario which shows that if the insertion loss is only 1dB then the reach is 1km + Y.

On the HSSG reference, I believe it was Ted Seely coming to the microphone to object to the presentation Chris, Eddie & I put together (http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/nov07/cole_01_1107.pdf) -- he was concerned that there were many scenarios where there were higher connectors/insertion loss such that he preferred 10km to accommodate the additional insertion loss.

cheers
--matt

-----Original Message-----
From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 12:27 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space

Paul
I notice you used a city block but you did leave out the fact that it was a multifloor scenario.

However as I pointed out I remember this from hssg days which is 5 years ago.  I agree with the call for new data and am not sure what data that has been presented to the IEEE that details the industry 2km need.  How much of that is want and not need is unclear to me.

Also one lesson that we should learn from recent industry debates -forget the reach- what is the desired budget?

John

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 19, 2011, at 2:16 PM, "Kolesar, Paul" <PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Scott,

I agree with the thrust of your assessment.

 

A minor correction.  I did include the entire link distribution in my analysis.  The only truncated input in my analysis is the patch cord distribution above 70 ft.  The percentage of channels within (or above) any length is the result of convolution of the length distributions of constituent links and cords, which carries the probabilities with it.  For example, if 10% of links lie above 100 m, the probability of two concatenated links being longer than 200 m is 0.10 x 0.10 = 1%.  This is over simplified because it does not include the equipment cords and the patch cord that create full channels.

 

I note that your cut-off at 400,000 square feet allows for a square footprint that is 632 feet on a side, substantially bigger than a square block which, at one tenth of a mile on a side, is 279,000 square feet.

 

Paul

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Scott Kipp [mailto:skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 11:59 AM

To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space

 

Jeff,

 

I agree with your point about distributions.

 

No, it was not arbitrary that I stopped at 400,000 sq ft.  I stopped at 400,000 sq ft because I wanted to cut off the tail of the distribution of the size of the data centers.  I propose that there are only a few % (probably les than 1%) of data centers that are over 400,000 sq ft.  The larger ones are the mega data center or massive data centers (MDC in either case) that Google and others are deploying.

 

Google is a very interesting case study since they deliver over 6% of all Internet traffic.  I just got a response from Bikash and he says they do have 2 km links and he is getting frustrated with the IEEE second guessing this reality.  What I think we need to do is understand that the MDC market has atypical needs and we do have solutions for this with LR4, 10X10-2km and 10X10-10km.

 

I suggest that we have a bifurcation in the market where we have what most people do and we have what the MDCs do.  One piece of data on this is in Paul Kolesar's data where he shows over 5% of permanent links between patch panels in 2010 are over 119 meters long (see slide 8 of http://www.ieee802.org/3/100GNGOPTX/public/sept11/kolesar_02_0911_NG100GOPTX.pdf).  Paul did not include these outliers in his analysis that shows only 1% of links are over 256 meters long (cell R31 of the Kolesar Kalculator).  We need to understand what assumptions and limits we're putting on the data since this affects our conclusions.

 

I will present on this more in Newport Beach.  I have gone to some large data centers, but not MDCs because they won't let people like me in!  We need to make the distinction between the white space (the raised floor where equipment resides) and the building size of the data center.  The white space is a significant subset of the building size.  The white space can be separated by significant distances and this can lead to long permanent links between the white space.

 

I'm proposing that the nR4 solution would meet the needs of many links that are longer than SR4.  From the Kolesar Kalculator, 19% of links are longer than 100 meters and less than 256 meters (cells R14-R31).  19% of links would need nR4 or LR4 if SR4 only supports 100 meters.

 

If SR4 matches the 150 meters of SR10 which will be very challenging with 25G lanes, then the nR4 market would shrink to about 8% of links (cells R19 to R31).  Paul told me that the 2:1 mix is the most likely deployment scenario in the industry and corresponds to column R in the spreadsheet. Only 1% of links are longer than 256 meters according to Paul's work.

 

I hope that helps,

Scott

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jeffery Maki [mailto:jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 5:05 PM

To: Scott Kipp; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space

 

Scott,

 

Was the choice to end your table at 400,000 sq. ft. arbitrary?

 

All,

 

I believe we need to know if the potential square footage may or may not grow larger over the coming years for what is known as a mega datacenter.  How big is a mega datacenter to be?  At some point, 100GBASE-LR4 will be the right choice just based on loss budget.  We need to know the distribution of reaches to understand where to draw the line in selecting a break in the PMD definitions.

 

[snip]