Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
Stephen,
I must disagree with you. In P802.3ba (and its study group) there were many contributions that compared the proposed approaches to existing PMD costs, with 10GBASE-LR and 10GBASE-ER commonly being used as basis. See:
Cole_40_02_0208
Traverso_40_01_0308
Cole_01_0107
Jewell_01_0107
Cole_01_0307
Cole_01_0507
Cole_03_0308
Traverso_04_0308
Cole_04_0708
And it goes on.
As can be seen from the partial lineage above, these comparisons were neither halted nor raised objection. As far as I know, no one got in legal trouble due to these contributions. And without them we would have been ungrounded in our understanding. For one thing they helped me understand that the old hallmark cost expectation of 10x data rate for 3x cost would not apply.
I think the present situation has become overly sensitized primarily because cost is front and center in our efforts to find optimization. While it is wise to be cautious, forbidding comparisons to some existing baseline is unprecedented and unwarranted.
Regards,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve) [mailto:steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 1:12 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
Hi Matt and Chris,
Thanks for bringing back all of the memories of the "Matt and Chris Show", which will live in 802.3 lore for decades to come.
As you say, there may be different things that are the right answer from the perspective of different suppliers and the technologies and capabilities they have at hand, and at the end of the day, when everyone hears the evidence the right answer is what 75% are prepared to believe is the right answer.
But there is an important distinction between the old Matt & Chris debates and the kinds of discussions that are starting to emerge here: in your debates, you were comparing the relative costs (and other merits) of the 800GHz DWDM and CWDM solutions to EACH OTHER directly, or to the relative costs of 40G parallel to serial to EACH OTHER. These kinds of discussions could produce legitimate relative cost debates in the spirit of what is allowed by IEEE and antitrust rules. Neither solution existed, so if an argument could be made that one solution had costs that were 1.3x the cost of the other, this was evidence that could be compared without knowing (or even guessing) the value of "x".
But if those debates had been conducted by reaching an early agreement that the way that relative costs should be compared is relative to, for example, 10G SFP+, where everyone had an idea about what they could buy such an existing module for, and if each of you had estimated your own cost relative to that solution, too many folks would have interpreted this as a forecast or target of expected 40G and 100G module prices. I believe that framing the old "Matt and Chris" debates in this kind of way would not have been permitted under IEEE rules or antitrust law.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Traverso (mattrave) [mailto:mattrave@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 11:41 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
Dan,
I believe Chris makes some great points, and your answer highlights some
of my heartburn about the process*.
<Chris wrote>:"10G DFB lasers vs. 40G EML. How do you determine their
relative costs in a perfect world?"
<Dan wrote>: Without being glib, I would trust you and your peers to
come up with the relative cost.
All of the subject matter experts enter into the IEEE with similar yet
different tools at their disposal such that it is often difficult to
come to agreement on even component relative costs. Let me point out to
somewhat recent examples:
First, in 802.3ba, there was a debate amongst various VCSEL
manufacturers around the spectral width parameter. According to some it
was "free"; according to others this parameter nearly defined the cost
of the VCSEL. Of course each party was correct for their particular
VCSEL structure. You might recall that this debate received some
attention as there was a push to extend the 100GBASE-SR10 reach and
narrowing the spectral width would help to extend the supportable reach
especially for OM4.
Second, also in 802.3ba, Chris Cole and I engaged in a multi-meeting
cycle debate on the merits of LAN-WDM versus CWDM wavelength spacing for
100GBASE-LR4. I know that in the case of my former employer and
affiliation that CWDM would have represented both a near term and long
term component power/cost improvement over LAN-WDM. However, I am
fairly sure that for Chris and his employer/affiliation that LAN-WDM
represented the optimum near & long term solution given the technologies
they possessed. Again, we were both right with the tools we had in
place, and our committee made a choice. Even as the "loser" in that
particular issue, I believe that it is better that we made a choice
which is optimal for at least some to drive interoperability and network
connectivity forward.
My suggestion going forward: Architecturally describe how a particular
proposal represents a cost/power/density advantage for the particular
application. I'm working toward a contribution to this effect.
*Note: I do believe the IEEE process that is in place with the 5
criteria and the rules we have in place are very very good; I'm just
pointing out that they are not perfect. If I am able to think up some
better rules/processes I promise to float them by David Law and the rest
of the experienced folks in the IEEE SA management team.
aloha
--matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Dove [mailto:ddove@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:07 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
Hi Chris,
I take your point regarding what to compare. ASICs, lasers, fibers, test
and assembly can also be compared by an expert in the field. Other
experts in the field can assess the comparison and nod their heads.
Others in the room can trust their judgment and we have consensus.
"10G DFB lasers vs. 40G EML. How do you determine their relative costs
in a perfect world?"
Without being glib, I would trust you and your peers to come up with the
relative cost.
Lets see what David has to say.
Dan
On 2/3/12 3:55 PM, Chris Cole wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I agree with you that this requires a thoughtful offline discussion
and
> well articulated guidelines.
>
> The perfect world you describe is unfortunately far removed from
> reality. PCB type, number of components, etc are not what drives cost
> differences. It is ASICs, lasers, fibers, test, and assembly. One
> example comparison from 802.3ba is illustrative: 10G DFB lasers vs.
40G
> EML. How do you determine their relative costs in a perfect world?
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Dove [mailto:ddove@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 3:48 PM
> To: Chris Cole
> Cc: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I also do not want to rely upon my own interpretation and have
requested
>
> an opinion from David Law.
>
> In my perfect world, someone would present an analysis on relative
cost
> of X vs Y using size, PCB type, thickness, number of comparable
> components, processing differences, die size, power, and the like to
> come to a relative cost between X and Y.
>
> They would present that at the meeting. People would either nod their
> heads and agree, or they would challenge assertions and perhaps not
come
>
> to consensus. Consensus does not mean everyone having the same
numbers,
> it means everyone nodding their head and agreeing that the analysis is
> "close enough for engineering". Consensus might be that the presenter
> was off on their numbers, and more presentations would have to come in
> to get consensus.
>
> Once that had been done, others could compare Z's relative cost to
> either X or Y and the group would now have a feel for how X, Y and Z
> stack up.
>
> I am just not comfortable taking "cost" based on market information.
> That is not cost IMHO.
>
> Lets put a damper on this discussion until David Law can provide his
> opinion.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 2/3/12 3:33 PM, Chris Cole wrote:
>> Steve,
>>
>> You have fully captured the difficult problem we face in trying to do
>> due diligence on competing proposals.
>>
>> If we use completely sanitized solution A and solution B costs which
>> cannot be referenced to more generally available data, then we are
> back
>> to "liar's poker" or more generously to "he said, she said". In that
>> case, there is no way to challenge the cost assertions of proponents
> of
>> solution A or solution B.
>>
>> If on the other hand we use more generally available data, so that
> there
>> is objectivity in the cost comparisons, not just unsubstantiated
> claims,
>> then this can always be traced to an actual dollar amount even if
>> through a tortuous path.
>>
>> So the concern I raised about not being able to demonstrate 5
> Criteria,
>> as further commented on by Brad, is genuine.
>>
>> The solution we employed in 802.3ba is to use cost numbers averaged
> over
>> many suppliers and many variants. In practice there is a very wide
>> variability in the market around that baseline, and the specific
> average
>> number may not even exist. The information is equally available to
>> everyone so it does not confer an advantage on any party in the
> market.
>> Despite all this, it is obviously not as crisp as not using any
>> generally available relative cost data.
>>
>> We are going to have to agree to some more useful guidelines than
have
>> been given so far if we don't want to rely on ad hoc interpretations
> by
>> the chairs of every email or presentation.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)
>> [mailto:steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:06 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>> I think that a lot of folks on the list are having trouble
>> distinguishing the difference in the meaning of "price" and "cost",
> but
>> also about the meaning of the word "relative".
>>
>> If people start describing costs relative to something they can buy
>> today, and everybody knows the price of what they can buy today,
> people
>> assume that if the same margins were to apply, they can infer a
> relative
>> price. This gets dangerous in that you are essentially deciding "how
> big
>> is a banana", and then using bananas as currency.
>>
>> The idea of "relative" to my understanding is that you need to
> restrict
>> yourself to "A" vs. "B" comparisons, and not put the universe on a
>> common scale which amounts to defining a currency which basically
>> translates to price. So if you have two ways to solve a problem, you
> can
>> compare the relative costs of those two solutions. If you are trying
> to
>> test if a "replacement" PMD is justified, you would want to analyze
> the
>> long term cost of what is inside of the module to see if that looks
to
>> cost enough less, long term, to be worth building.
>>
>> What I see people trying to do is to establish this currency where
> folks
>> are asked to compare their own proposal to some baseline (e.g., SR10)
>> assuming that if everyone uses the same baseline, you can do
> arithmetic
>> and effectively compare the relative costs of solution A vs solution
> B,
>> not by actually comparing them directly against each other, but by
> using
>> some other established currency. I am not sure this is a really
>> productive exercise either, since I think it would just create a game
> of
>> "liar's poker" with every contributor trying to construct a story
that
>> puts their solution at the lowest "cost" based on this common
> currency.
>> This assumption is wrong unless you can guarantee that everyone who
> does
>> this is equally thorough, equally honest, equally optimistic (or
>> pessimistic). The common scale won't help you: you really need to
look
>> at solutions directly against each other.
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:35 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
>>
>> John
>>
>> Can you explain the difference between the discussion of relative
> module
>> costs in NG 100G OE SG, and the discussion of relative module costs
in
>> HSSG and 802.3ba including of specific form factors?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:14 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
>>
>> Dan,
>> Let me clear - do not include me on any discussions regarding price.
>> That is an inappropriate discussion and I do not want to be involved!
>>
>> John
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Dove [mailto:ddove@xxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:11 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
>>
>> Seriously, folks;
>>
>> I am going to officially ask that if you wish to talk about products
> and
>> their relative prices, please do it on a different discussion forum.
>> Maybe an email thread among friends?
>>
>> We are here to talk about IEEE standards, PMDs, and their relative
>> costs.
>>
>> Dan Dove
>> Chair, Next Generation 100G Ethernet Study Group