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

Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives

Hello Petar,

I would be most inclined to support your Option 1, N X 10 Gb/s, for the
short reach solution.  If we revise the distance objective to 100 meters,
we should be able to relax both the encircled flux specification as well as
the spectral width.  Relaxing encircled flux will be important from the
perspective of maximizing alignment yield in a parallel module, and
relaxing the spectral width specification will likely provide a meaningful
yield enhancement for a number of companies engaged in the manufacture of
VCSELs.  Both of these improvements will be important for providing the
lowest cost solution.  Even a target reach of 200 meters over OM3 fiber
should allow sufficient relaxation of the specifications to have a positive
impact, although a 200 meter target would need further technical evaluation
and feedback from a broader base of fiber, device, and module
manufacturers.  I hope that this general guidance is helpful.

Best Regards,

John Dallesasse

             <petarp@xxxxxxxxx                                          To 
             M>                        STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   
             08/22/2006 01:23                                              
             PM                                                    Subject 
                                       Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives         
             Please respond to                                             


I agree with you. And the breakpoints vary from solution to solution.

Let's consider the following two examples:

1. N ch. x 10 Gb/s over OM3 fiber at 50m, and at 100m, there is very little
difference in the specs, so the cost will most likely not be affected.
2. M ch. x 17 Gb/s (or 20 gb/s) over OM3, there will be much larger
difference between 50m and 100m and there might be cost premium.

This will depend on the expected yield distribution and how sensitive is to
changes in the specs. So, we will need to carefully tread and not become
prisoners to the reach objectives, but rather optimize the cost.

From our perspective, there are distances up to 150m, but the largest
distances are not so common, so that is why I proposed the 100m.

Whatever is not covered by the 0-100m, should be covered by the next PMD
(most likely SMF based). That will reduce the cost by giving it additional
volume, while the short distance on the MMF will drive the cost by
increasing the yield.



Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218 (mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134 (shipping)
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

e-mail: petarp@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax:        (914)-945-4134

 Brad Booth <bbooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>                                         
 08/22/2006 01:56 PM                                    STDS-802-3-HSSG@li 
            Please respond to                                              
    Brad Booth <bbooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>                              Subject 
                                                        Re: [HSSG] Reach   

Excuse my ignorance, but why?  When 10G started, this was an important
debate.  If they had stuck with the number of PMDs in 802.3z, then there
would have only been two PMDs.  The study group needs to define the markets
that it wants to satisfy, and only then when the study group becomes a task
force can the group decide on the actual number of PMDs required.


From: Drew Perkins [mailto:dperkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:45 AM
To: Brad Booth; STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [HSSG] Reach Objectives

I have a simple proposal to save everyone a lot of time. Let’s make the
baseline plan to stick with exactly the same number of PMDs with exactly
the same reaches as 10GbE. They have all been developed to fit someone’s
requirements. We should have a very high hurdle to eliminate any of these
or add to them.


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


From: Brad Booth [mailto:bbooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:19 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives

The 10km vs. 2km debate occurred in 802.3ae.  It was determined that the
solution for 2km was virtually the same as that for 10km; therefore, the
task force felt it would be better to select only one of those reaches and
10km was it.  If there is a desire for 2km and 10km reaches in HSSG, then
in my humble opinion, those wishing to support will need to bring
justification forward as to why the study group should consider possibly
increasing the number of PHYs.


From: Frank Chang [mailto:ychang@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:19 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives

I agree datacenter for up to 100m. How about 10GigE LR disctance (10km) or
campus 2km discussed earlier?

-----Original Message-----
From: Petar Pepeljugoski [mailto:petarp@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:02 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives


I believe that the Data Center distances should be 100m and 300m.

Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218 (mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134 (shipping)
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

e-mail: petarp@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax:        (914)-945-4134

 John DAmbrosia                                                            
 08/22/2006 12:37 AM                                       STDS-802-3-HSSG 
               Please respond to                           [HSSG] Reach    
                John DAmbrosia                             Objectives      

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
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?