| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Brad, I do not believe you were on the call this week. Your summary below is not representative of the discussions that happened this week. Pete and Matt did a presentation that looked at how to partition work (http://www.ieee802.org/3/50G/public/adhoc/archive/anslow_120915_50GE_NGOATH_adhoc.pdf) , and your summary below is not representative of where the discussions are. At this point the work being proposed to come in to 802.3bs would be for 200GbE only - the logic, electrical interfaces, and SMF objectives. I will be looking to set up an ad hoc call, but in the meantime I encourage all to participate in the 50/100/200G Study Group calls. Information can be found at http://www.ieee802.org/3/50G/public/adhoc/index.html. I just want to make sure as this discussion begins that we are at the correct starting point. Regards, John D’Ambrosia Chair, IEEE P802.3bs 400GbE Task Force From: Brad Booth [mailto:bbooth@xxxxxx] John, thank you for preparing the data and for bringing it forward. To my fellow task force participants, I'm replying to John's email (and not the follow-on discussions), because I'd like to return to the information John provided. I humbly do not believe it is in the industry's best interest for the 100G and 200G effort to be rolled into 802.3bs. While there may be the ability to tune existing proposals to optimize them for 100G and 200G specifications, we have already observed that some of our colleagues would rightly like to challenge those positions; whereas, others rightly counter that some customers like to have a migration path. These discussions need to occur, and that is the goal of the study group to consider these types of things. We should be honest with ourselves though; even if we reused existing proposals, the addition of 100G and 200G will impact the schedule of 802.3bs. We have already delayed 802.3bs' targeted ratification date once, and that delay was announced to the industry not that long ago. Are we truly prepared to go back to the industry and tell them we're going to delay 400G again? Is anyone getting tired of constantly revising PARs? Are we instilling any confidence with the industry that we can do the necessary projects in a timely fashion? Yes, the market dynamics are changing quickly in our industry. Adding delay to already existing projects doesn't create a sense of responsiveness. While 100G and 200G may have technical similarities to 400G which creates the sense that combining would be good from a project management point of view, the market needs for those speeds may be different. There is a market that sees a more immediate need for 400G. That market already has the ability to do 100G and 200G (coherent) today, and they are willing to wait for new variants of 100G and 200G. What they do not have is 400G. Do we really want to make them continue to wait? Thanks, Brad On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:00 AM, John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|