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

Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives



I agree. The limits that were posted are fine with me.

Aaron Dudek
(703) 689-6879
Sprintlink Engineering
adudek@xxxxxxxxxx


On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Geoff Thompson wrote:

> Aaron-
>
> My personal opinion (which may or may not correlate to the opinion of my 
> employer) is that ultra long haul (ULH) will come into the conversation in 
> due course. I don't think it is necessary up front.
>
> Some of the requirements are likely to be taken up by existing optical 
> amplifiers and maybe even existing 3R repeaters (less likely).
>
> If a new regenrative repeater is considered to be necessary to extend the 
> reach of what we have for shorter haul, then it is a nice small project that 
> we can do separately (and perhaps a little later). Such a repeater was 
> implicitly inferred by Joel and Steve and explicitly by me during the earlier 
> discussion of regenerative link terminations with lower latency than you 
> might be able to get with full decoding.
>
> (See my message: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:12:54 -0700, Re: [HSSG] HSSG MAC & PHY 
> Options )
>
> Since I think that is a reasonable straightforward extension of what (I 
> expect) we are going to do anyway, I don't think we have to make life more 
> complicated by including it now.
>
> In the meantime, we can concentrate our discussions on reach objectives for a 
> single link (although my opinion is that we shouldn't do anything radical in 
> the long haul area).
>
> Geoff Thompson
>
>
> At 09:49 AM 8/22/2006 , Aaron Dudek wrote:
>> Geoff,
>> Shouldn't the migration to ULH systems have any impact on the spacing and 
>> hence be taken into consideration? Or is that beyond the scope for now?
>> 
>> Aaron Dudek
>> (703) 689-6879
>> Sprintlink Engineering
>> adudek@xxxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>> 
>> > Roger-
>> > At 03:47 AM 8/22/2006 , Roger Merel wrote:
>> > 
>> >        Agree with Drew.  Have a few additional comments on other reachs:
>> > 
>> >        For reach objectives, we should start with customer based needs 
>> >  (for broad market potential) and only amend if an
>> >        obvious technical limitation with compelling economics can t 
>> >  readily meet the broad customer need.
>> > 
>> >        Specifically:
>> > 
>> >        - Long Reach probably should be set at 80km rather than 100km (as 
>> >  this is the common hut-to-hut amplifier spacing
>> >        in telecom)
>> > 
>> >        - While 50m does serve a useful portion of the market (smaller 
>> >  datacenters and/or the size of a large computer
>> >        cluster), it is somewhat constraining as I ve been lead to 
>> >  understand that the reach needed in larger datacenters
>> >        is continuing to out-grow the 100m meter definition but the 100m 
>> >  definition at least serves the customer well.
>> >        Certainly 10G-BaseT worked awfully hard to get to 100m (for 
>> >  Datacenter interconnect).
>> > 
>> > I wouldn't attach a lot of creedence to the 10GBASE-T goal for 100 
>> > meters. It was, I believe, mainly driven by the
>> > traditional distance in horizontal (i.e. wiring closet to desktop) 
>> > distances rather than any thorough examination of data
>> > center requirements.
>> > Geoff
>> > 
>> >        - For both in-building reaches (50m & 300m; or 100m & 300m), the 
>> >  bigger issue which affects the PMD is the loss
>> >        budget arising from the number of patch panels.  The shorter / 
>> >  datacenter reach should include a budget for 1
>> >        patch panel.  The longer / enterprise reach should include a 
>> >  budget for 2 patch panels (one in the datacenter and
>> >        1 in the remote switch closet).
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        From: Drew Perkins [mailto:dperkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> >        Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:24 AM
>> >        To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >        Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        John,
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        I suggest dividing Metro into Metro Short Reach at 10 km 
>> >  (equivalent application to 10GBASE-LR) and Metro
>> >        Intermediate Reach at 40 km (equivalent application to 
>> >        10GBASE-ER).
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        Drew
>> > 
>> >        _____________________________
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        Drew Perkins
>> > 
>> >        Chief Technology Officer
>> > 
>> >        Infinera Corporation
>> > 
>> >        1322 Bordeaux Drive
>> > 
>> >        Sunnyvale, CA  94089
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        Phone:  408-572-5308
>> > 
>> >        Cell:       408-666-1686
>> > 
>> >        Fax:        408-904-4644
>> > 
>> >        Email:    dperkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > 
>> >        WWW :  http://www.infinera.com
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        _____________________________
>> > 
>> > 
>> > __________________________________________________________ ________________ 
>> >        From: John DAmbrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> >        Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:38 PM
>> >        To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >        Subject: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        All,
>> > 
>> >        We have had some conversation on the reflector regarding reach 
>> >  objectives.  Summarizing what has been discussed
>> >        on the reflector I see the following
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        Reach Objectives
>> > 
>> >        Long-Haul   --> 100+ km
>> > 
>> >        Metro       --> 10+ km
>> > 
>> >        Data Center --> 50m & 300m
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        Data Center Reach Segregation
>> > 
>> >        Intra-rack
>> > 
>> >        Inter-rack
>> > 
>> >        Horizontal runs
>> > 
>> >        Vertical risers
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        Use this data to identify a single low-cost solution that would 
>> >  address a couple of the reach objectives
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        Other Areas
>> > 
>> >        During the course of the CFI there were individuals who wanted 
>> >  Backplane Applications kept in for consideration,
>> >        but I have not heard any further input in this area.  Are there 
>> >  still individuals who wish to propose Backplane
>> >        as an objective?
>> > 
>> > 
>> >        John
>> > 
>> > 
>
>