Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
Shimon,
I have made multiple HSSG presentations, and sent out many HSSG
reflector emails, all strongly advocating that we adopt a 100GE IEEE
standard as soon as possible. I am persuaded that 100GE will see broad
market adoption, beyond the initial core switching applications. This is
based on presentations from both server manufacturers such yourself, and
multiple presentations by end users. The core switching application is
an ideal market for introducing a complex new technology, to be followed
by introductions into higher volume markets with lower cost next
generations.
To meet 100GE server needs in 5 to 8 years is very aggressive, given the
challenges of 100GE optics. A departure from reality would be to delay
developing 100GE standards and technology by several years, expecting
that first generation products would then meet the needs of the data
center upon introduction.
With respect to 40GE, I have not advocated any position, although I have
offered views on 40G PMD technology alternatives. The reason is that
while there has been a strong case from system OEMs, not a single end
user has asked for 40GE. So it is not a reluctance to accept your
arguments (in fact I quote you the most of anyone within the HSSG,) but
rather a withholding of judgment until I hear the full story. If the
only 100GE market potential presentations came from system OEMs, I would
also not advocate a position. I would simply contribute to the
discussion of 100G PMD technology while I waited for more information.
My suggestion is that you ask your customers, who presumably are asking
you for 40GE, to make HSSG presentations in support of Broad Market
Potential. When a straw poll was taken during the March HSSG meeting
whether the HSSG believed there was Broad Market Potential for 40GE, the
vote was 23 yes, 32 no, and 36 abstain. It seems that the quickest way
to turn this around is to have many end users presenting in favor or
40GE.
As an earlier reflector email commented, in the end this is about making
money, and that is driven by demand.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Shimon.Muller@Sun.COM [mailto:Shimon.Muller@Sun.COM]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:14 PM
To: Chris Cole
Cc: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
Chris,
I can't disagree with your observation, because this is the main reason
why I fully support the 100Gb effort.
What troubles me, however, is that you are willing to take at face value
the
argument of the "key architects from the three major server
manufacturers"
as it relates to 100Gb, but are reluctant to do that when it comes to
their
needs for 40Gb.
Why is that? Aren't you being a bit selective here?
Shimon.
Chris Cole wrote On 04/06/07 14:02,:
>Key architects from the three major server manufacturers (SUN, IBM, HP)
>have stated that servers will need 100GE ports starting 5 to 8 years
>from now (see page 3 of my Broad Market Potential presentation from the
>March HSSG meeting, and Muller's presentation from the January HSSG
>meeting.) It is diificult to see how starting to develop technology
that
>will migrate into this market can be characterized as departing from
>reality.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OJHA,JUGNU [mailto:jugnu.ojha@AVAGOTECH.COM]
>Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:32 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
>
>Matt, to address your point about BMP for 40G, I can't help but think
it
>ironic when even the strongest proponents of 100G say that they do not
>see a market for more than 100's to 1000's of links in the next 5+
>years. We departed from reality long ago....
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Traverso [mailto:matt.traverso@GMAIL.COM]
>Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:27 AM
>To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
>
>I'd like to comment from an optical component / module vendor point of
>view.
>
>Personally I'm not convinced that broad market potential has been
>demonstrated, but... Operating under the assumption that the 40GbE
>broad market potential is verified with end user input:
>- As we heard/saw in Jack Jewel's presentation focused on the cost &
>reliability of the MMF objective, extending from a 1x10G VCSEL to a
>10x10G VCSEL does not represent a linear cost increase -- similarly a
>4x10G would only be an incremental increase
>- The dominant cost in a nx10G MMF interface is likely to be any
>premium charged for the interface IC as well as costs associated with
>the development quad laser drivers & quad amplifiers (or deka drivers
>& amps)
>- I'd like to hear a comment / perspective from the fiber
>manufacturers on the utilization rate of the ribbon fiber strands.
>For a 4x10G MMF approach presumably 8 strands in the 12 ribbon would
>be used 4 for TX and 4 for RX. For a 10x10G MMF approach it would be
>2 @12 with 10 @ Tx and 10 @ RX. What does this do to the cost and
>usage rate metrics of MMF cabling?
>- Would an SMF PMD objective at 40GbE have broad market potential
>(BMP)? Here I am very skeptical
>- Assuming that BMP was shown for an SMF PMD objective, I would
>advocate a 2km serial 40Gbit/s scheme rather than a 4 lambda approach
>as the transmission problems are not as severe
>- This would represent the path that reuses the most technology and
>allows for a compact & low power dissipation end solution
>- As I have stated one of the primary impediments is the availability
>of a low power interface IC -- this is the primary obstacle for OC768
>(40G SONET/SDH) modules
>- A 4 lambda x 10G at single mode would not simply be able to plug in
>the work done on 802.3ae as the technical challenge of MUX/DMUX
>optical loss and packaging would require a new round of investment
>
>In closing I'd like to see some supporting data for the Broad Market
>Potential of 40GbE (including distance / media usage
>comments/assumptions) that reflects the timeframe of standard
>development -- eg. demand/need in 2009-2012.
>
>thanks,
>--matt traverso
>mtraverso@opnext.com
>
>NOTE: This e-mail is being sent from my personal e-mail account rather
>than my corporate e-mail address at Opnext due to default signature
>files embedded in my Opnext e-mail account.
>
>