|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Thanks to everyone that has jumped on to the thread. It is great to see we have lots of interest. The original email was just to gather names for those who are interested in being part of the discussion around building towards CFI.
Next week in Pittsburgh will be busy, but I’ll try and set up a quick meeting during the lunch time slot one day to talk about next steps. I’ll send out details when I have them but will take this off the dialog reflector to save everyone’s inbox. Email me if you haven’t already and want get the info.
On 5/12/15, 7:24 PM, "Brad Booth" <bbooth@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I didn't advocate that you have to compare to a 4x100G solution. Compare to 100G, compare to 8x50G. Provide data that this is a solution that is really needed, and not a solution that's looking for a home. As one colleague mentioned, "just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should do it."
I do advocate that those wanting to develop a 200G specification should bring supporting data that can be used in completing the 5 Criteria. Answer why we should do 200G?
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: