| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
How about dielectric material
that is projected to be used in X percent of the market in 201#? That plays to
broad market potential. Silicon technology is expected to still have exponential
growth. Changing “backplane/line card” board technology on the other hand is
like turning a battle ship. Given that, we should at least evaluate how much
of legacy product present in 201# we can cover given the disparity of the silicon
vs. board technology pace. Simply put, coverage could be one of the metric to
compare proposals. Unfortunately it’s still crystal ball. … Rich From: Havermann, Gert
[mailto:Gert.Havermann@xxxxxxxxxxx] All, besides the grammar I would like to have some kind
of reference to the "enhanced FR-4 Material". There are so many
different anhanced materials available (low loss, ultra low loss, low dk
glass...) all having a different influence on the length factor we are trying
to fix (not to mention the cost differenve between materials). Regards Gert Havermann Absender ist HARTING Electronics GmbH & Co. KG; Sitz der Gesellschaft:
Espelkamp; Registergericht: Bad Oeynhausen; Register-Nr.: HRA 5596; persönlich
haftende Gesellschafterin: HARTING Electronics Management GmbH; Sitz der
Komplementär-GmbH: Espelkamp; Registergericht der Komplementär-GmbH: Bad
Oeynhausen; Register-Nr. der Komplementär-GmbH: HRB 8808; Geschäftsführer:
Edgar-Peter Duening, Torsten Ratzmann, Dr. Alexander Rost Von: John
D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] All, Not sure this message got
forwarded to the reflector, so forwarding. Regards, John From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx] John and group, The objectives are on the right track, but there are a few
grammatical and clarity issues. The first is an issue with the wording at the end of each.
The phrase “up to at least” is illogical and confusing because it
combines words that specify maxima (i.e. up to) with words that specify minima
(i.e. at least). While this phraseology may be following some precedent
of former objectives, it only serves to cloud the real intent. In the
past these objectives have always been interpreted as the requirements for
minimum reach. Therefore I propose that they each simply state it as such
by replacing “lengths up to at least” with “lengths of at least”. Further, I do not know what is intended by the phrase “for links
consistent with lengths”. Why use the word “consistent”? Is there a
perception of some increased flexibility or some other advantage? Please
explain. If the advantage is ambiguity, I would prefer stating objectives
more crisply. Unless your rationale for this word choice is compelling, I propose
combining these two issues into the following new phrase: “for link lengths of
at least”. Lastly, it would be simpler and clearer to place all the adjectives
describing “traces” before the noun rather than some before and some after.
Rearranging these yields ”over improved FR-4 copper traces”. With all three of these changes, the two draft objectives become: · Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over improved
FR-4 copper traces for links lengths of at least “X” m. · Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper
twin-axial cables for links lengths of at least “Y” m. Of course all these grammatical improvements do not address the
main issues which are the values of X and Y. But that is what study
groups are for. Regards, Paul Kolesar From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] All, I wanted to try and foster some
discussion on the reflector regarding objectives for the project to help all
focus their planning of presentations for March. So what do we appear to have
consensus on so far? a)
We are in a study group looking at
100GbE over backplane and copper twin-ax b)
Legacy support indicates broad market
potential would be aided by 4 lane solutions What appears to need further
consensus building? Well the big ones would seem to be reach for both
backplane and cu cabling objectives. So if we can combine where we
appear to have consensus with what we need to resolve, the following two
statements could be used as strawmans for objectives for the group to work
towards (leaving the reach #’s as variables for now): · Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper
traces on improved FR-4 for links consistent with lengths up to at least “X” m. · Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper
twin-axial cables for links consistent with lengths up to at least “Y” m. Feedback? John |