-----Original
Message-----
From: Brad Booth
[mailto:bbooth@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28 August 2008
03:55
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
[802.3BA] 802.3ba XR
ad hoc next step concern
Dave,
I
agree. A 5% cost
adder seems reasonable for a 17% increase in broad market potential.
I
do wonder if part of
the problem is the compliance points TP0, TP1, TP1a, TP4, TP4a and
TP5. In past efforts such as 802.3z and 802.3ae, these compliance
points
have been left up to MSAs and only TP2 and TP3 were of concern. Now
the
task force is dealing with such issues as modules and the cost impact
of
various implementations. IMHO, IEEE 802.3 was trying to avoid
writing implementation specifications and was focused on compliance
specifications. Could it be that these compliance points are causing
the
task force some heartache because it results in an implementation
specification?
Just
food for thought...
Thanks,
Brad
From:
Chalupsky, David [mailto:david.chalupsky@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday,
August 27, 2008
8:18 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
[802.3BA] 802.3ba XR
ad hoc next step concern
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
Hi
Mike,
We
are pretty close to
full circle now. :)
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]
Sent: Wednesday,
August 27, 2008
4:22 PM
To: Dove, Daniel;
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE:
[802.3BA] 802.3ba XR
ad hoc next step concern
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
1480
Arthur Ave.
Louisville
CO 80027
Tel 303 530 3189 x7533.
mike.dudek@xxxxxxxx
Let
me re-state
one word of that message.
From:
Dove, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday,
August 27, 2008
2:00 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
[802.3BA] 802.3ba XR
ad hoc next step concern
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