Re: [STDS-802-3-400G] [802.3_400G] Presentation for next week

[Brad Booth <bbooth@xxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

You're correct that answering that question would be great. It's not a simple answer though, and everyone is likely to have varying views. What I was hoping to capture in the presentation is things the task force might wish to consider when selecting interfaces.

I'm hoping that the presentation will permit the task force to discuss some of these issues in a open forum to gain broad consensus on a path forward.

Thanks,
Brad

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Jeffery Maki <jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Brad,

 

We have multiple optical reach objectives in 802.3bs. I do not see that the longevity (or obsolescence) would be the same for them all nor that the high-volume market adoption time frame would be the same for them all.

 

Could you make your presentation more granular with statements per each reach objective?

 

I don’t like gearboxes or I think you mean to say muxes either but if they do not appear in initial implementations then they will show up sooner as reverse muxes as electrical interfaces progress in lane count reduction. I would presume you would want there to be no mux needed when 400G Ethernet is adopted in large volume in the mega datacenter. The question then is what SERDES rate on switch ASICs do you see 400G Ethernet being adopted in large volume in the mega datacenter?

 

Jeff

 

 

From: Brad Booth [mailto:bbooth@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 1:13 PM
To: STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_400G] Presentation for next week

 

All,

 

I'm attaching a first draft of a presentation I plan to make next week at the 802.3bs meeting. If you see any areas where I can provide greater clarification, please feel free to let me know.

 

If you'd like to be listed as a supporter of this material, I'd be honored to add your name.

 

Thanks,
Brad