| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Folks, Just a gentle reminder for all. The goal of a Study Group is to develop objectives. As engineers, we often get caught up in the details of how things work, and how we can do them better, etc. This is OK, but we should keep our eye on the target.
Now, this is NOT an objective, but it could be. We only have to do one thing in this Study Group related to SMF; Identify the the value of Z that meets the 5 criteria, starting with Market Potential. We may find that there is no need for a SMF objective, or we may find that there is a need. To demonstrate need, we must show market potential for an alternative to 100GBASE-LR4 exists, and this is most likely demonstrated by showing a cost/power advantage can be obtained by alternative approaches. We have to assume that a 4x25G interface will reduce module size and power, and hence cost, so our relative comparison is not a CFP based LR4, but rather a 4x25G electrically interface based LR4 cost model. Agreed? If so, then demonstrating that a reasonable volume of nR4 (relative to LR4) can achieve a significant cost/power advantage over LR4, should be the path to securing an objective for SMF. We can assume that volumes in a data center that exceed SR4 reach will exist, and will be significant relative to 10Km applications. Of course we will want to quantify that assumption, but lets run with it. I think breaking down the relative cost of the optical subsystems and fiber infrastructure (in the case of MTP arguments), then demonstrating how an alternative approach lowers these costs, should be the next step. For example, suppose we break down a 4x25G LR4 module into cost components (PCB, Mech, Tx_Optics, Rx_Optics, Si, Filters) and call that 100%. Then look alternative approaches and lay them alongside (assuming common volumes) and see where they land. If a particular approach is limited to Z Km, then look at the market potential for that reach based on distribution of links that can use it. Is this not a reasonable approach to the question? If so, then lets use it as a framework for future presentation. Dan |