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

Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective



Jonathan,

 

Paul summarized the issue very well:

“The trouble with AOCs is that if port-lock-out policies are in force, both ends of the channel must plug into the same brand of switch or server.  That is an unattractive constraint customers face with surprise at first followed by bitterness.  They fault IEEE for not doing its job to ensure interoperability.”

 

The same thing is occurring with SFP+ modules. The industry is deploying their 2nd and 3rd generation of equipment with SFP+ and are trying to re-use SFP+ components that support port-lock-out. To the customer, they don’t know why it doesn’t work. They have an SFP+ socket and an SFP+ component. The component used to work in the previous equipment but doesn’t work in the new equipment. As Paul says, they fault us for not doing our job to ensure interoperability.

 

As for what we can do, the study group/task force cannot ensure interoperability. Companies can produce proprietary implementations, even if they are based on industry standards or MSAs. In my humble opinion, if there was a way to address this, then I’m sure the industry would be quite happy.

 

Thanks,
Brad

 

 

From: Jonathan King [mailto:jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:17 AM
To: Booth, Brad; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Hi Brad, Could you summarize the interop issues, and whether  you think they could be addressed by  IEEE or MSA?

Thanks

jonathan

 

From: Brad Booth [mailto:Brad_Booth@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:31 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Jeff,

It depends on what you consider an AOC. If it is a module-cable-module construction, then the MDI is the connector in the module. That would mean the electrical interface would be mandatory. If it is a module-cable construction that uses a passive channel, then the MDI could be specified similar to the way existing optics are specified. Of course that would constrain the internal works of the AOC.

I'm surprised you are unaware of the issues the industry is having with SFP+. It has nothing to do with linear/limiting although I'm sure some will use that statement as justification. As far as the customer is concerned, there is an interoperability issue. Yes, it is beyond the scope of IEEE 802.3, but not in the customer's eyes.

But that's not my underlying issue with AOC. AOC requires no work from the study group/task force. They can do their work today or build off of .3bj. This study group is focused on 802.3 specifications for next gen 100G optics. If there is market potential for an AOC to provide a short reach solution, then there is probably market potential for the study group to consider a short reach objective.

Thanks,
Brad



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffery Maki [jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:43 PM Central Standard Time
To: Booth, Brad; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

Brad,

 

I was sincerely asking what needs to be further standardized to make AOC work for end customers.  The customer has nothing to choose.  There is no mix and match scenario.  It is “pluggable form factor to cable to pluggable form factor” that is all permanently connected.  There is nothing to configure in a physical sense, only software.  In relation to software, one barrier I see is something we do not cover in 802.3 and that is the required digital diagnostics such as transmitted and received optical power.  AOC tends to eliminate this function since mimicking copper cabling where as transceivers are best when offered with such functions.  Hence, the customer is confused as to why link health monitoring based on optical power is not consistently provided.

 

I could attend the maintenance meeting, but perhaps you could give us a hint as to one of the big ticket problems.

 

SFP+ is confusing with some modules being limiting and others being linear and with system companies possibly implementing support only for limiting modules.  The linear SFP+ modules fail in these limiting slots.  None of this though as to do with IEEE because electrical interfaces are optional.  Should they become mandatory specifications in the IEEE?

 

Jeff

 

From: Brad Booth [mailto:Brad_Booth@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Jeff,

I'm not precluding the adoption of AOCs. The customer can do as they wish. While AOCs can be developed to operate at a compliance point like CAUI, there is no requirement for that AOC to be interoperable in more than one vendors equipment.

If you don't believe this is an issue, then you may wish to attend a maintenance meeting or talk to Valerie Maguire. SFP+ DAC and optics modules have some of those issues today, and I can tell you that customers are not happy. They think the standards bodies have screwed up. If the study group forces them to use non-interoperable equipment and components again, then the customers are going to begin to question the necessity of using an Ethernet standard.

If there is a short reach market for AOCs, then there is a short reach market for passive, interoperable solutions.

Thanks,
Brad



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffery Maki [jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 05:17 PM Central Standard Time
To: Booth, Brad; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

Brad,

 

The CAUI or XLAUI electrical interface is a 802.3 standard that these AOC’s connect.  What more would we need to “standardize?”  AOC can go 100 meters or more physically.  It is market acceptance of such assemblies for longer runs that is the problem owing to installation difficulties.  We still need standards for transceivers (pluggable optics) but I think it is difficult to preclude the adoption of AOC that are based on whatever novel technology meets the need as in cost as things move along.  There are compliance points that a transceiver based link has to meet that an AOC can ignore.  Perhaps what should be looked at is easing the compliance points for Ethernet optics while keeping the link budget stable.

 

Jeff

 

From: Brad Booth [mailto:Brad_Booth@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 12:26 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

I liked Chris’ point about 30 m vs. 10 m. While the study group may decide on two objectives, it doesn’t mean it has to be met by two PMDs. This was the case in P802.3ae where there was a 2 km SMF objective that was satisfied by the 10 km SMF PMD. The P802.3ae task force felt that there was going to be very little cost difference; therefore, it was better to put the volume into one PMD type rather than segment the market for with two PMDs.

 

This could be a similar situation for MMF PMDs. It may be easier for the eventual task force to have the ability to make those trade-offs between providing one or two PMDs to satisfy the different market requirements. The one requirement I perceive as point-to-point leaf-spine or EoR/ToR deployment HFT, HPC and Web 2.0 applications, and the other requirement is structured cabling data center environment (either Enterprise or Cloud).

 

As for AOCs, I believe they are a fantastic example of missing the broad market potential. Why do customers use AOCs? Ease-of-use? Not likely. Cost? Definitely. If the study group decides it wishes to concede the shorter-reach, cost-optimized market to a non-standard implementation, then in my humble opinion that brings into question the viability of broad market potential for the other PMDs. Why would the study group not pursue what is potentially the largest volume market with an IEEE 802.3 standard?

 

Just my 2 cents,

Brad

 

 

From: Mark Nowell [mailto:mnowell@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 12:17 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

I think Chris has some good points here. 

 

I can see the argument for the reaches being bi-modal with 100m being one maximum and a second one at a shorter reach (I hear 30m, 50m, 70m). This is resulting in many assuming we need two PMDs. I don't see it that way. Chris' points below around the challenges of doing two PMDs are all worth considering. 

 

I do want to raise what I had assumed would be the market approach here:

- standardize around 100m 

- assume AOC addresses any cost-optimized shorter reach.

 

From a standards perspective, we define the 100m PMD, we also define the 4x25G electrical interface. AOC's are interoperable by the standardization of the electrical interface.

 

The advantages of AOC's from an application perspective, is that we are all aware of the cost sensitivity that very short reach has. An AOC allows a supplier to optimize their technology in any way they choose. In fact, it doesn't limit technologies to just MMF ribbon. It allows the user to focus on the 3 things that really matter - cost, power, size....

 

Question for those thinking about two PMDs. Is the assumption that these two PMDs are in anyway interoperable or are they distinct? And which two? I've heard 100m OM3/150m OM4 and I've heard 100m/~50m OMx.

 

Mark 

 

 

 

 

On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Chris Cole wrote:

 

Steve

 

Last year, I was on the same page as you, in viewing two MMF objectives as appropriate for supporting two distinct applications. One application is lowest possible cost for shorter reach applications, for example 50m as you suggested, or 70m as I suggested. A second application provides broad data center coverage, for example minimum of 100m. It is also my perception that there is broad agreement in the Study Group about the existence and importance of these two applications.

 

However, I have now come around to the view point that we should move forward with only one MMF objective, specifically minimum 100m on MMF. Technical solutions as to how to achieve this objective such as pre-emphasis, DFE, other EDC techniques, FEC, OM4, should be left up to the Task Force to decide.

 

The reason I no longer support the shorter reach objective is that I do not see the possibility for consensus as to what the technical solution will look like, nor do I see us as having enough technical information to make informed trade-offs. So it is in the best interest of the low cost application not to prematurely freeze design choices by adopting a standard. We do not have enough information about VCSEL yields to optimize for cost. Any low cost reach objective we pick will either be shorter than necessary, or longer than optimum. Design choices like un-retimed interface which will be more feasible a few years from now, are likely to be off the table now.


As we have been regularly reminded, the 802.3 standards process does not prevent anything. So the best way to support the low cost short reach application in the near term is by proprietary solutions derived from the single 802.3 MMF standard. This is similar to what is happening now for 10G-SR MMF SFP+, where there an important fraction of the market is for a shorter reach module than 300m, for example 100m.

 

When we have learned more, we can adopt a second 100G MMF standard in a future project, if it still makes sense.

 

Chris

 

From: Swanson, Steven E [mailto:SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 8:36 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Pete,

 

Not really; the resulting PMD was 100m over OM3 and we got to 150m on OM4 by reducing the connector loss from 1.5 to 1.0 dB.

 

We cannot do that here unless one would define only a 150m PMD and as Petar notes, this likely would not fly because the 150m PMD by definition will be higher cost than a shorter reach PMD and is not what is needed by some. One size does not fit all.

 

Steve

 

Steven E. Swanson 
Corning Incorporated 
800 17th Street NW, HI/ES 
Hickory, NC 28603-0489

t       828-901-5328 
f       828-901-5533 
c       607-725-1129

From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:24 AM
To: Swanson, Steven E; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Steve,

 

Well, 802.3ba is a counter example.  The objective was 100m and the resulting PMD was 150m over OM4.

 

Regards,

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

 

From: Swanson, Steven E [mailto:SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 24 February 2012 16:21
To: Anslow, Peter; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Pete,

 

If we set the objective at 100m, we will not get 150m. In fact the argument in the TF  will be “we don’t need it to meet the objective.”

 

At least that is my experience in several of these developments.

 

Best regards,

 

Steve

 

Steven E. Swanson 
Corning Incorporated 
800 17th Street NW, HI/ES 
Hickory, NC 28603-0489

t       828-901-5328 
f       828-901-5533 
c       607-725-1129

From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:54 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Paul,

 

While I am not saying that 150m over OM4 may not be the outcome of the Task Force, it is my view that it is not the function of the Study Group to start to make technical choices for the Task Force.  I think the Study Group should set an objective at which the PMD has broad market potential etc. and try to make as few technical choices as possible.  150m over OM4 is quite a challenging objective and setting it would rule out some of the choices that the Task Force might want to make.  I am not of the view that if it turns out to be 100m over OM4 that this is not worth doing, so I  am more in favour of setting the objective to be 100m over MMF and leave the technical choices as to whether this means over OM3 or OM4 etc. to the TF.

 

Regards,

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

 

From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 24 February 2012 15:31
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Pete,

The line of thinking expressed in your second paragraph suggests that the MM reach objective would need to be revisited, presumably to be shortened for lower cost, should the SM PMD cost be projected to be low enough to cause it to be attractive for channel lengths within that MM reach.  If my interpretation is correct, and we do not have confidence in SM optics achieving such an aggressive cost decline, then the reach objective for MM should be at least as long as that established for 100GBASE-SR10, namely 150 m on OM4.  

 

Regards,

Paul

 


From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 9:10 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Chris,

 

I don’t think that this really helps.  What you really need to know in order to determine if an SMF PMD will affect what the reach should be for the MMF objective is the relative cost of the new MMF and SMF modules.  However, just knowing what the SMF reach objective is won’t tell you that.  Many of the decisions to be made by the Task Force will affect this relative cost and there was some consensus on the last SMF call that the only likely constraint on an SMF objective below say 2 km is the cost of parallel fibre.  It is not clear at this point whether a PMD capable of 1km (say PAM-8) is more expensive or cheaper than one that is only capable of 500m (say parallel fibre).

 

I think that the Study Group should decide on a MMF objective that stands on its own.  If it turns out that there is an SMF objective and the Task Force choices make the relative cost of that PMD low enough to affect the MMF reach, then the Task Force can seek to change the MMF objective.  This is (in my opinion) the earliest point that the group can rely on having a reasonable idea of the relative cost of the two solutions.

 

Regards,

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

 

From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 24 February 2012 14:47
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Steve

 

I tend to agree with you, but Paul does have a point that to some knowing what the SMF objective is important in deciding what the MMF objective should be.

 

My suggestion is that we keep the MMF poll exactly as Jonathan crafted it. Anyone that feels the SMF objective has to be decided first has the option to state so and then state their view of what that is likely to be. This will allow us to not delay making progress towards reaching consensus on a MMF objective

 

So let’s call this question A.

 

A)     To make a decision on an MMF reach objective, I am assuming the SMF reach objective will likely be:

a.      No SMF objective

b.      At least 500m

c.       At least 1000m

d.      At least 2000m

 

Those like you and me who do not see strong linkage simply do not answer question A.

 

Jonathan can then record how many responses he receives to question A and the choice. Both results will give us a measure of the thinking of Ad Hoc participants.

 

Chris

 

 

From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve) [mailto:steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:14 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Hi Paul,

I don’t think it is nearly so clear that you should decide SM first.

 

If there existed a SM solution that was cost-competitive with a MM solution at some reach, it would be a game changer, and those developing MM solutions would surely like to know if the game will change before getting too far down the path. But most seem to believe that the game will not change, and even if it did, it is hard to prove because it is difficult to compare relative costs of dissimilar technologies.

 

Most still seem to believe (in spite of the interesting technology from Opnext) that there will be a significant step function from MM to SM that will keep people from wanting to use it in data centers. Furthermore, if you need a different cable type, for example, for a 70m link than you need for a 100m link, that creates its own kind of problem.

 

So if the game does not change, then SR4 needs to try to address most, if not all, of the reach currently addressed by SR10. If it turns out not to be technically or economically feasible to do that (e.g., if you could only get 60 or 70m out of the beast within reasonable cost, size and power), then if SM is to replace MM above that reach, it needs to get down to a cost to compete with an SR10 with a reverse gearbox. Even if SM does this, it isn’t clear they will get all of that market because of a likely reluctance to mix cable types in the data center – maybe they are happier to use SR10 with a reverse gearbox to reuse their existing cabling.

Regards,

Steve

 

From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:49 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Jonathan,

While I understand the desire to find a launching point for the discussion, this poll is approaching the problem in the wrong order because we need to know what the single-mode objective is first.  

 

A purpose of the Study Group is to set objectives that will allow us to establish cost-optimized 100GE.  One cannot logically pick cost-optimized MM objectives without first having framework around the SM optics that will be used to address channels with lengths that exceed the MM reach.  At this point, we have not even established if we will have a SM objective.  In other words, we don’t know if the existing LR4 will remain the only one, or if there will be another one added.  Only when the SM situation is established can we know the minimum capability that a new MM optic must fulfill to optimize cost.

 

I suggest that we first conduct such a poll for SM and use it to start the objective discussion in the SM ad-hoc.  If that produces solid results, then undertake the same endeavor for MM.

 

 

Regards,

Paul

 


From: Jonathan King [mailto:jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:13 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
Importance: High

 

Dear all,

On the Feb 14th MMF ad hoc call , it seemed like we were  beginning to converge on a possible objective for MMF .

In the next meeting (Tuesday 28th Feb), I’d like to see if we can finalize a strawman MMF objective.  To that end I’ll prepare  a presentation which we can review  during the call which will include a strawman objective for review on the call, together with an overview of how it addresses the 5 criteria – to help get the best starting point for that discussion I’d like to get your responses to the questions below  questions:

 

The strawman objective will follow the wording in Anslow_01_0111

 

Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over OMX MMF with lengths up to at least Y m

 

 

1)      A reasonable MMF reach objective (i.e. the value of Y) would be

a.      100m

b.      Significantly less than 100m (what reach?)

c.       Significantly more than 100m  (what reach ?)

d.      decided in the task force

 

2)      The MMF type should be

a.      decided in the task force

b.      OM3

c.       OM4

d.      at least as good as OM4

 

Please send your responses to me directly at:  jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx

I will collate and report the results but will not reveal any individual’s responses.

If you feel uncomfortable expressing an opinion, say so and I’ll note that.

 

To  repeat, this is not a formal poll or vote, just intended to give us the best starting point for discussion on Tuesday.

Please send your responses as soon as possible, and at least by close of business on Monday 27th Feb, 2012

Many thanks !

 

Jonathan King

MMF ad hoc chair, Next Gen 100G Optics

 

From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:10 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF Ad Hoc and MMF Ad Hoc meetings

 

Hi,

 

Following on from the meetings on 14 February, Jonathan and I are planning to hold an SMF Ad Hoc meeting immediately followed by an MMF Ad Hoc meeting (1 hour each) starting at 8:00 am Pacific on Tuesday 28 February.

 

If you would like to present a contribution at the SMF ad hoc, please send it to me and for the MMF ad hoc, send it to Jonathan.

 

Peter Anslow from Ciena has invited you to join a meeting on the Web, using WebEx. Please join the meeting 5-10 minutes early so we may begin on time. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Topic: "SMF Ad Hoc followed by MMF Ad Hoc" 

Date & Time: Tuesday, 28 February 2012 at 16:00, GMT Time (London, GMT) 

To join web meeting click here: https://ciena.webex.com/ciena/j.php?ED=136667227&UID=0&PW=NMGZjOWUwNDM2&RT=MTgjMjE%3D 

Meeting password: IEEE (please note passwords are case sensitive) 

Teleconference: Call-in number:

+44-203-4333547  (United Kingdom)

4438636577  (United States)
2064450056  (Canada)

Conference Code: 207 012 5535 

Meeting number: 683 690 763 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Additional Notes: 

- To add this meeting to your calendar program click the following link, or copy the link and paste it into your Web browser: https://ciena.webex.com/ciena/j.php?ED=136667227&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=18&ST=1&SHA2=zxju/MpyUhnp7ROB7hR78ViLpXBupiLpj4OEPm0zSJ8=&RT=MTgjMjE%3D 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Australia, Brisbane :        0730870163

Australia, Melbourne :   0383380011

Australia, Sydney :           0282386454

Austria, Vienna :               01253021727

Belgium, Brussels :          028948259

Bulgaria, Sofia : 024917751

Canada, All Cities :           2064450056

China, All Cities Domestic :           8008706896

China, All Cities Domestic :           4006920013

Czech Republic, Prague :               228882153

Denmark, Copenhagen :               32727639

Estonia, Tallinn :                6682564

Finland, Helsinki :             0923193023

France, Paris :    0170375518

Germany, Berlin :             03030013082

Germany, Frankfurt :     06924437355

Hong Kong, Hong Kong :               85230730462

Hungary, Budapest :       017789269

India, Bangalore :             08039418300

India, Chennai - Primary :             04430062138

India, Mumbai :                02239455533

India, New Delhi :            01139418310

Ireland, Dublin :                015269460

Israel, Tel Aviv : 37630760

Italy, Milan :       0200661900

Japan, Tokyo :   0345808383

Korea (South), All Cities :              0264903634

Latvia, Riga :       66013622

Lithuania, Vilnius :            52055461

Luxembourg, Luxembourg :        20881245

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur :              0348190063

Netherlands, Amsterdam :          0207946527

New Zealand, Auckland :              099291734

Norway, Oslo :  21033950

Poland, Warsaw :             223070121

Romania, Bucharest :     318144966

Russian Federation, Moscow :   4992701688

Singapore, All Cities :      6568829970

Slovak Republic, Bratislava :         0233418490

Slovenia, Ljubljana :        016003971

Spain, Barcelona :            935452633

Spain, Madrid :  911146624

Sweden, Stockholm :     0850512711

Switzerland, Bellinzona :               0912611463

United Kingdom, All Cities :         08443386571

United Kingdom, All Cities :         02034333547

United States, All Cities :               4438636577

Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh : 84838012419

 

Regards,

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