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

Re: [HSSG] Topics for Consideration



I agree that the APL sublayer should ideally be defined in a very general way.  That is to say, in a perfect world, it would support aggregation of channels with various (i.e. – mixed) bit rates.  That being said, this raises some interesting challenges.  For example, the striping (or splitting) ratio across the channels will not be uniform – for every ten bits (or bytes) sent down a 10G channel, only one could be sent down a 1G channel.  Is there any precedent for managing something like this?  If not, does anyone have any idea whether this is even feasible?  





From: Myles Kimmitt [mailto:mylesk@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 9:58 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG] Topics for Consideration



My point was that the APL should try to be broader than an nx10G sublayer (at least architecturally) because there are applications that could take advantage of higher speed links, especially over time. Try to get more mileage out of the sublayer.


I wasn't proposing that 802.3 get involved in any WAN links - it was just an example of how economics skew in different markets.


All that you say about dispersion is true but 25G dispersion would be 2.5 times better than 40G. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.



----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Kolesar

Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 7:56 PM

Subject: Re: [HSSG] Topics for Consideration


I agree that there is a cost to consuming wavelengths, and they should be used wisely.  But a system that has been engineered to support 10G rates cannot necessarily step up to higher speeds, even if optically compatible with the existing DWDM grid and power levels.  The SM fiber's dispersion limited distance drops as the square of the bit rate.  For example, for externally modulated sources, if the dispersion limited distance is 60 km at 10Gb/s, then at 25 Gb/s it will be less than 10km.  So channels that exceed this distance would need to be dispersion compensated.  Were you thinking that the higher rates would be used  only on shorter channels, or were you thinking of dispersion compensation technologies as work-arounds?  If the former, then consider how it impacts the objectives.  If the latter, it opens up a whole set of issues.  

Paul Kolesar
CommScope Enterprise® Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082

Phone:  972.792.3155
Fax:      972.792.3111
eMail:   pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Myles Kimmitt <mylesk@xxxxxxxxxxx>

08/09/2006 05:05 PM

Please respond to
Myles Kimmitt <mylesk@xxxxxxxxxxx>






Re: [HSSG] Topics for Consideration




I would expand on the statement:
"Carrier want to leverage their existing DWDM layer which mean
baudrate in the 9.95-12.5 Gig".

There are two layers at which compatibility with existing DWDM systems can
be achieved: the electrical layer (which this statement implies) and the
photonic layer. Compatibility at the photonic layer means interoperability
with existing DWDM wavelengths, optical filters, power leveling, etc. on
the same fiber. Is is likely that 25G (+7% FEC) NRZ optical signals are
compatible with many existing 10G NRZ DWDM systems. There is a premium to
using many wavelengths in these systems and a 4x25G channel might well be
cheaper and more wavelength efficient (as measured by GB/s/nm)than a
10x10G channel.

Such details are probably beyond the scope of the SG but I think it is
important to architect below the MAC to allow link speeds faster than 10G
within the APL which make sense in certain markets and will become more
economic and widespread over time.


> I have listed dilemma we are facing:
> - Implementing 100 Gig in the near term means Nx10Gig
> - Implementing 100Gig in few years the right answer might be nx25Gig
> - Carrier want to leverage their existing DWDM layer which mean
> baudrate in the 9.95-12.5 Gig - If LAG implemented why not allow n to be 4?
>  - Operation with different width
> - Backward compatibility XAUI, LX4 ?
> - Greatest bandwidth demands (100+Gig) are on VSR links <50 m but
> the longer reach >10Km may be able to live with 4x10Gig.
> All these means we should either define some sort of scalable
> architecture or just define LAG method and do not define any PMDs!
> Thanks,
> Ali

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/414 - Release Date: 8/9/2006