| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
The 20% cost premium applies to only one
of our proposed XR alternatives. According to the alternatives spreadsheet (Comparisons_xr_01_0708.xls)
the CDR option adds only 5% module cost premium over the base proposal and
provides reach of 168m to 251m (across the OM3/4, one-sided/two-sided matrix). I’m struggling to keep up with the
conversation here – but I believe that the 5% alternative addresses the
same problem as the 20% alternative, right? On that assumption I will rephrase Dan’s
non-rhetorical question to address a 5% cost adder for 17% increase in
coverage: If I have the choice between: A) carry two product SKUs: 100m and 150m,
with 5% Bill of Material cost delta on the 150m product; or B) carry only the 150m product I would accept option B & use only the
150m module even though I know that most of my customers will use it at
<100m. By considering only the bill of material of
the module we are missing two aspects of the big picture on cost. 1) Carrying multiple
product SKUs through design, validation, manufacture, customer qualification, customer
confusion, etc. adds cost. Regardless of whether
802.3ba adds a second objective, if the module supplier base develops two
different module solutions for 100 & 150m, then the 100m solution will
carry an intangible cost burden and the desired 0% cost adder for 100m will not
be achieved anyway. 2) The module is not the
whole solution. The CDR module solution does not add cost to the host. Thus
a 5% increase in module cost is less than 5% increase in the total cost of the
switch plus modules. I appreciate that the task force is
learning from the history of 10GBASE-SR: that over-specifying the solution had a
long term cost impact. However, we should take away another lesson
from 10Gbit: that providing too many options confuses the customers &
slows adoption. I strongly urge the task force to provide
a single solution for parallel MMF. I believe that it’s worth a 5%
cost adder to the module to achieve that. I really have no personal (or commercial)
reason to prefer the CDR option. I’m just looking at the 5% figure
in the spreadsheet & wondering why this isn’t a no-brainer. Thanks for your time, Dave Chalupsky From: Dove, Daniel
[mailto:dan.dove@xxxxxx] Hi Mike,
Assuming we make the decision that we want
to stick with the "standard" model at 100m to keep those customers we
would lose by adding cost, does the IEEE standardize a 150m solution or do we
let the market solve that problem on its own? This is not a rhetorical question,
although it might appear to be. Can someone provide any insight on the
sensitivity of the market to an additional cost of 20% for every 100m link to
satisfy the additional reach? If the market is insensitive to cost (on
this scale) then perhaps the additional reach is justified. If the market is
going to be sensitive to that differential cost, then the question falls back
to whether the IEEE wants to do a 150m spec or leave it to a market-defned
solution. Dan From: Mike
Dudek [mailto:Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxx] Hi Dan Of course if we don’t increase the
cost of the basic Grade A model and have a Grade B version of the same part for
extra reach with the Grade B version being loaded with any additional costs of
handling two product codes and any additional testing, then we shouldn’t
lose any customers. Regards Mike Dudek PMTS Standards & Technology JDS Uniphase CO 80027 Tel 303 530 3189 x7533. mike.dudek@xxxxxxxx From: Dove, Daniel
[mailto:dan.dove@xxxxxx] Let me re-state one word of that
message. From: Dove,
Daniel Hi Steve, Yes that helped a lot. I hope the others
on the list are not irritated by my request for repetition of the data. Given the data, it truly is a challenging
issue. I see a 20% premium for a 17% increase in coverage. This means the confidence in the numbers
is exceptionally important and assuming they are accurate, a judgement call by
the committee on whether or not a 17% increase in port coverage justifies the
20% increase in cost. This is important because if you increase
the *COST* of a solution by 20%, you may decrease the
number of customers who are willing to buy it by more than 20%. Thus, in the
overall mix, it might turn out to satisfy less customers overall. Its a pretty challenging judgement call
IMHO. Thanks for providing the data. Dan |