Sent: Monday, November 28,
2011 8:24 PM
Subject: Re:
[802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
Mike,
You make good observations. But please note that the ~80/20
split includes all usage not just within a data center. The barbieri
reference cited below also shows on slide 9 that for SONET/SDH the percentage
of sub 7km SM optics deployed is less than 20% of the overall SM mix. And
this is for an application that sees much less MM deployment compared to
Ethernet. So while I think your argument has validity, the ratios may
need adjustment. Instead of assuming 20% SM ports in DCs, the SONET/SDH
data suggests that it may be more accurate to assume less than 1/5th
of this (< 4%) of the total SM ports are in DCs. So rather than 20% +
0.8*(SM coverage), it may be better to use 4% + 0.96(SM coverage).
Paul
From: Mike Dudek
[mailto:mike.dudek@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 1:25 PM
To: Kolesar, Paul; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
On the topics of volume I think we need to be clear that the 20%
SMF to 80% MMF is not a fixed ratio. I think that the ratio
should be mainly explainable by the capabilities of the units. At
the moment the MMF is sufficiently lower cost than SMF that within the data
center most installations use MMF when they can and SMF when MMF hasn’t got the
reach. If the MMF reach becomes shorter it’s volume will drop
and the SMF volume will increase. That is evident in Paul’s
spreadsheet (and is I think one of the basic assumptions in his
spreadsheet). Looking at that spreadsheet however there is
obviously some additional usage for SMF at 10G because if one puts 300m for the
multimode solution it predicts that the SMF percentage is well less than 2%.
Based on this I think we could assume that the SMF percentage will be
approximately 20% + .8*(SMF percentage from Paul’s spreadsheet) while the MMF
percentage will be .8*(MMF percentage from Paul’s
spreadsheet.). As an example if one assumes the following:
MMF reach is dropped to 75m
there are equal numbers of server to switch links using fiber
and switch to switch links
the switch to switch links use a 2:1 ratio for the single versus
double-link
Paul’s spreadsheet would predict that in his population
there is only a 16.4% single mode usage. That would
change the overall ratio to 33% SMF to 67% MMF.
Adding an additional lower cost shorter distance SMF spec would
however complicate the analysis. The big question would be
how much of the 20% additional SMF market would go to the lower cost shorter
distance spec. If a large percentage does then the volume of the LR4
would drop potentially increasing its cost substantially.
Mike Dudek
QLogic Corporation
Senior Manager Signal Integrity
26650 Aliso Viejo Parkway
Aliso Viejo CA 92656
949 389 6269 - office.
Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxxxx
From: Kolesar, Paul
[mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 6:28 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
David,
Thanks for your efforts on this fundamentally important
topic, going so far at to involve the governing authority of IEEE for guidance
and reassurance of the current practices. While I still believe that the
current practice is overly restrictive, I also appreciate the line that may be
crossed if discussions stray to far afield on the topic of price. I
intend to abide by the guidance you have given.
All,
With regard to translation between cost and price, there
are several forces at work. I previously mentioned the gorilla in the
room. There is also the equally important factor of production rate, for
increased volumes often translate into decreased costs. The comparison of
cost must be couched in terms of volume, for it can be imbalanced to compare
input costs of different proposals if they are stated with expectation of
differing volumes. I urge all contributions on costs to also provide them
in the context of their volume assumptions. We must also realize that if
volume context is given in terms like “at equivalent volumes of X”, where X is
volume of a baseline technology that is well along its maturity curve, such
volumes for 100G technologies may be many years into the future.
Therefore a large gap may exist between present costs and distant future cost
potential. We must also remember to consider the fact that historically
the market demand for our optical solutions tends to fall along an 80/20 rule,
with 80% of the port volumes going to multimode and 20% going to single-mode.
See http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/nov06/barbieri_01_1106.pdf
So we must be weary of using the volumes of multimode
solutions as the volume basis for cost projections of proposed single-mode
solutions unless those single-mode solutions are presumed to replace multimode
solutions and not just augment them in data centers.
The above contribution also provides historical adoption
rates of single-mode solutions by reach that can set context for
expectations.
Regards,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@xxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 1:52 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
Hi Paul,
I want to bring your attention to the text 'Discussion of
the cost of inputs necessary to create a compliant implementation of a standard
are treated differently from discussions of prices at which compliant
implementations can or should be sold. There is no useful or appropriate reason
to discuss selling prices of implementations - each implementer of the standard
should use its own independent business judgment to make that decision. In
contrast, there is a legitimate reason to discuss costs of inputs used in
implementation.'.
I believe this agrees with your point that the
information is publically available - but states 'There is no useful or
appropriate reason to discuss selling prices of implementations' which I believe
is what you are requesting.
If a discussion of current and past end user cost (price)
of products that implement the standard were to occur it could very easily
stray into a discussion of the future end user costs of the proposed standard,
which you agree is not allowed. This is addressed in the answer to the question
'So is it okay to talk about prices or output levels in an IEEE-SA meeting as
long as we don’t reach an agreement?' which states:
No, it’s not okay. First, you can’t always control where
the discussion will go – it may end up in undesired areas. Second, if agreeing
on the subject would be unlawful (such as the respective selling prices of
compliant products), then that subject should not be discussed. And third, it’s
not up to you to decide whether your words and conduct amount to an agreement –
in the U.S., that decision gets made by a judge using the peculiar rules of
evidence that only courts use and by a jury that is unlikely to know anything
about your industry or business. The whole question about your actions will
come up after the fact, and with the sure vision of hindsight, any questionable
discussion or debate could be seen to have led to a tacit if not an explicit
agreement that is prohibited by law. Please do not put the IEEE, your company,
your colleagues in the standards community, or yourself at risk by discussing
these topics.
I have discussed your concerns with David Ringle,
Director, Governance & Technical Committee Programs at the IEEE-SA, and he
is in agreement with my position.
Best regards,
David
_______________________________________
From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 17 November 2011 17:22
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
David,
Thanks for the pointers to the IEEE policy. I have
been reviewing it and find the following particularly relevant to the thread
below. I have underlined key parts for easier reference.
What else can we discuss? IEEE wants you to have the
maximum flexibility to discuss topics relevant to developing a standard while
also adhering to certain rules designed to minimize risk. It is impossible to
identify all the topics that you can discuss, but here are some that you cannot
discuss:
• prices at which products or services implementing the
standard should be sold (“price” includes discounts, terms, and other
conditions of sale);
• profits or profit margins;
• individual companies’ market shares or sales
territories;
• allocation of customers, markets, production levels, or
territories; or restricting the customers to whom, or territories in which, a
company may sell or resell products;
• using standards or certification programs to exclude suppliers
or competitors from the marketplace for any reason other than cost-performance
or technical considerations;
• conditioning the implementation of a standard on the
implementer’s use of products or services from a particular supplier [such as
requiring use of a particular manufacturer’s components or requiring
implementers to use a particular service provider(s) for compliance
certification];
• bidding (or terms of bids) or refraining from bidding
to sell any product or service;
• any matter which restricts any company’s independence
in setting prices, establishing production and sales levels, choosing the
markets in which it operates, or the manner in which it selects its customers
and suppliers.
The first bullet gets at the heart of the matter.
It is what everyone keys on when the discussions of price are thwarted.
It states we cannot discuss what prices should be. I think we can all
agree that to do so would be anti-competitive. But it says nothing about
discussions of prices as they actually are in the market today or have been in
the past. To muzzle such discussions is overstepping the bounds and scope
of the policy, for there is no anti-trust reason why prices that are in public
domain, such as can be found posted on public web sites, cannot be brought
forward. Such activity is not price fixing, it is price reporting.
In the case of setting new standards we are naturally
talking about documents that affect the future. This is the context under
which the IEEE policy is written and should be interpreted and applied.
When the policy says:
Discussion of the cost of inputs necessary to create a
compliant implementation of a standard are treated differently from discussions
of prices at which compliant implementations can or should be sold. There is no
useful or appropriate reason to discuss selling prices of implementations –
each implementer of the standard should use its own independent business
judgment to make that decision. In contrast, there is a legitimate reason to
discuss costs of inputs used in implementation.
…
With regard to the costs of inputs used in implementing a
standard, the only permitted discussion is the degree to which such costs may
differ. Examples of permissible discussion topics would include differences in
comparative component costs, operating costs, licensing costs, or the aggregate
of such costs. The importance of this restriction on discussion is reinforced
by the understanding that participants in the development of a standard often
come from multiple stages of the supply chain (e.g., the input cost of a
component to a system manufacturer is the output price of a component
supplier).
Thus, in standards development technical activities,
participants may discuss the relative costs (in terms, for example, of
percentage increases or decreases) of different proposed technical approaches
in comparison with the relative technical performance increases or decreases of
those proposals.
It is obviously referring to the setting of new
standards. This is conveyed by the use of the word “proposed” and more
fundamentally by the entire context of the policy for guiding standards
development. While it is not referring to discussions of cost for
implementations already standardized and in the market, the above restrictions
are needlessly being applied that way. There is no anti-trust implication
to discussions of publicly available information, even if it is with regard to
price. How can there be? It’s already fully available to all
participants. Such restrictions would imply that discussions of current prices
somehow set agreements on future prices of yet-to-be-standardized
implementations. That is a non-sequitur.
If we are talking about input costs on items affecting
the setting of future standards, the guidelines are clear that we must use
relative costs, not absolute costs.
It also recognizes the supply chain issue, that one
link’s cost is the previous link’s price. But it places no restriction on
the point in the supply chain at which relative costs can be compared.
Therefore imposition of restrictions on discussions of relative costs at the
top of the supply chain or any other specific part of the supply chain is
outside of this policy.
While I do not relish raising these issues, I feel
compelled to do so because after reading the actual policy it is clear to me
that our practices in 802.3 are unnecessarily restrictive both to the letter
and spirit of the IEEE policy.
Regards,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@xxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:02 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
Hi Jonathan,
While I note that Dan has already stated that comparing
cost at the end user is not permitted, and discussion did not go into that
area, I wanted to reiterate that such discussion are not permitted. I also
wanted to respond to your request to me to comment.
As I have often stated at meetings, I would encourage
everybody to read the IEEE policy document 'Promoting Competition and
Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association’s
Antitrust and Competition Policy'
<http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/antitrust.pdf>. I personally
think it provides a good explanation of why these rules are in place, due to
the Antitrust and competition laws throughout the world, and the consequences
if they are not followed.
This policy states that we cannot discuss, among other
items, 'prices at which products or services implementing the standard should
be sold (“price” includes discounts, terms, and other conditions of sale)'.
This is enforced in subclause 5.3.10.3 'Discussion of relative cost/benefit
analyses' of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual and stated in the
'Guidelines for IEEE-SA Meetings' slide shown at every meeting.
By way of an introduction to why these rules are in
place, and the consequences to all of us if they are not followed, I offer the
following extract from the introduction to the above policy document. Clause 2
of this document addresses 'Cost Discussions' in further detail. Participants
may also wish to consult 'What You Need to Know About IEEE Standards and the
Law' <http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/stdslaw.pdf>.
----
Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to
Know about the IEEE Standards Association’s Antitrust and Competition Policy
Antitrust and competition laws throughout the world rest
on the premise that competition in the provision of products and services is
the best way to ensure that consumers and other users receive maximum
innovation and quality at the lowest possible prices. But sometimes effective
competition requires a measure of cooperation among competing firms.
Standards development is one of those areas. Standards
development serves one part of the IEEE’s mission – advancement of global
prosperity by fostering technological innovation – but it can do so only if the
standards development is conducted consistent with the antitrust and
competition laws that regulate the nature and extent of cooperation in which
competitors can legitimately engage.
The IEEE-SA is an international membership organization
that provides a standards program serving the global needs of industry,
government, and the public. A violation (or claims of violation) of competition
laws will jeopardize what all participants are working so hard to build; will
impede the IEEE mission; and may expose participants and their employers to the
risk of imprisonment and other criminal penalties, civil remedies, and
significant litigation costs. Even if a competition-law case or investigation
is ultimately dropped, that will often happen only after the parties have spent
considerable resources in responding to information requests and defending
against the claims.
The IEEE-SA wants to help all of its participants avoid
competition-law problems. Many IEEE-SA participants receive
antitrust/competition-law compliance training from their employers, and IEEE-SA
participants should always consult with their own or their company counsel when
they have competition-law-related questions. This brochure is not intended to
replace that competition-law training, advice, or other competition-law-related
resources that participants may have available to them; rather, this brochure
is intended to highlight the competition-law risks that are most pertinent to
standards development and to explain the IEEE-SA’s policies with respect to
competition law matters.
<http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/antitrust.pdf>
----
Best regards,
David
________________________________________
From: Daniel Dove [mailto:ddove@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 16 November 2011 20:04
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
Hi Robert,
I am not sure its even appropriate to comment about
prices-of-resale. Its a topic better left understood without discussion within
the IEEE. We all have a general idea of the challenges we face in assessing
relative cost.
In my opinion, you do it by looking at fundamental
architectural components and their specifications. You do it by looking at cost
from a form/fit/function perspective and leave out things like market pricing,
demand or volume. You choose *cost* comparisons with components that have
equivalent markets/volumes and then your comparison can have merit without
getting into the esoteric aspects of the market.
Dan
From: Robert Lingle <rlingle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Robert Lingle <rlingle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:52:26 +0000
To: 100G Group
<STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
Jonathon,
I agree with your former sentiment about it being against
IEEE guidelines, so we must not do it. I am sure Paul agrees.
However I don’t agree with the latter sentiment. I think
Paul is pointing out a real quandary in our task. I think we can point out
cases where the adoption of components has been substantially impacted by the
prices-of-resale, over a lengthy period of time. I am not sure how long we
would have to wait for the long term?
It seems to be a genuine difficulty in carrying out the
analysis we all want to see.
I don’t have a solution.
Warm regards,
Robert
From: Jonathan King [mailto:jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 5:15 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
Hi Paul,
I cannot support comparing cost at the end
user, because (in my opinion) that is quite clearly a price, and would be
contrary to IEEE guidelines.
I would like David Law to weigh in on this.
In an efficient market economy, the cost of manufacture
(not the cost of distribution) of a product, or group of products, is the best
indicator for long term cost to the end user. I think that’s what we
(802.3) want to get some indicator of when striving for ‘low cost’
solutions.
Best wishes
Jonathan
From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 8:30 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
I also like Jack’s perspective foundation. And I
have to agree that a common small port form factor would be valuable.
Regarding the PMD cost comparisons, I also agree that
picking a common cost basis could eliminate translation problems that come with
use of different bases. For PMD relative costs I am fine with choosing
either 10GE SR or LR because I don’t quite appreciate Chris’ concerns over the
danger in using LR as the basis. But if there is a problem, it seems like
it could be avoided by eliminating the bit/sec factor and instead using simple
cost.
However, there is still the issue of picking the point in
the supply chain at which the baseline cost is chosen. It could be at the
level of the transceiver manufacturer, or up one level to the switch
manufacturer, or off on another branch to distributors, or up one level again
to the end user. There can be substantial differences in these costs,
which is what likely gives rise to the “order of magnitude” perception
disparity that Chris mentioned. While we are forbidden to talk about it,
it is the 500 pound gorilla in the room. In some cases it tips the scales
lightly and in other cases it leans its full weight. Yet this weight is
what is creating a 100GE market acceptance barrier in data center deployments.
While there is clear cost reduction potential in reducing
the multimode lane count based just on the improvement in media cost, the
benefit of defining a new single-mode solution may depend largely on the
gorilla, for if we go to a parallel solution the media will only get more
costly. So for me the biggest cost question is whether defining a new
single-mode solution moves the gorilla from leaning heavily to leaning
lightly.
While I’d like to agree to use cost at the transceiver
maker level as the basis, it cannot address this big question. If used it
will likely result in highly distorted perceptions and projections because it
ignores the order-of-magnitude problem. The only point in the supply
chain where transceiver costs and cabling costs come together is at the end
user level. This dilemma is hitting me squarely as I try to further my
work on the “Kolesar_Kalculator”. I continue to wonder what good
this tool will do if the PMD cost and cable cost are in two different silos
without a common basis to bring them together, for it is the combination of the
two that defines the total channel cost that we must optimize. I need to
find a way to appease the gorilla. If only Fay Wray were here…
________________________________________
From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:33 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
Hello Jack,
Nice historical perspective on the new reach space.
Do I interpret your email as proposing to call the new
150m to 1000m standard 100GE-MR4? ☺
One of the problems in using today’s 100GE-LR4 cost as a
comparison metric for new optics is that there is at least an order of
magnitude variation in the perception of what that cost is. Given such a wide
disparity in perception, 25% can either be impressive or inadequate.
What I had proposed as reference baselines for making
comparisons is 10GE-SR (VCSEL based TX), 10GE-LR (DFB laser based TX) and
10GE-ER (EML based TX) bit/sec cost. This not only allows us to make objective
relative comparisons but also to decide if the technology is suitable for wide
spread adoption by using rules of thumb like 10x the bandwidth (i.e.
100G) at 4x the cost (i.e. 40% of 10GE-nR cost) at similar high volumes.
Using these reference baselines, in order for the new
reach space optics to be compelling, they must have a cost structure that is
referenced to a fraction of 10GE-SR (VCSEL based) cost, NOT referenced to a
fraction of 10GE-LR (DFB laser based) cost. Otherwise, the argument can be made
that 100GE-LR4 will get to a fraction of 10GE-LR cost, at similar volumes, so
why propose something new.
Chris
From: Jack Jewell [mailto:jack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 3:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Emerging new reach space
Following last week's meetings, I think the following is
relevant to frame our discussions of satisfying data center needs for low-cost
low-power interconnections over reaches in the roughly 150-1000m range. This is
a "30,000ft view,"without getting overly specific.
Throughout GbE, 10GbE, 100GbE and into our discussions of
100GbE NextGenOptics, there have been 3 distinct spaces, with solutions
optimized for each: Copper, MMF, and SMF. With increasing data rates, both
copper and MMF specs focused on maintaining minimal cost, and their reach
lengths decreased. E.g. MMF reach was up to 550m in GbE, then 300m in 10GbE
(even shorter reach defined outside of IEEE), then 100-150m in 100GbE. MMF
reach for 100GbE NextGenOptics will be even shorter unless electronics like EQ
or FEC are included. Concurrently, MMF solutions have become
attractive over copper at shorter and shorter distances. Both copper and
MMF spaces have "literally" shrunk. In contrast, SMF solutions have
maintained a 10km reach (not worrying about the initial 5km spec in GbE, or
40km solutions). To maintain the 10km reach, SMF solutions evolved from FP
lasers, to DFB lasers, to WDM with cooled DFB lasers. The 10km solutions
increasingly resemble longer-haul telecom solutions.!
There is an increasing cost disparity between MMF
and SMF solutions. This is an observation, not a questioning of the reasons
behind these trends. The increasing cost disparity between MMF and SMF
solutions is accompanied by rapidly-growing data center needs for links longer
than MMF can accommodate, at costs less than 10km SMF can accommodate. This has
the appearance of the emergence of a new "reach space," which
warrants its own optimized solution. The emergence of the new reach space is
the crux of this discussion.
Last week, a straw poll showed heavy support for "a
PMD supporting a 500m reach at 25% the cost of 100GBASE-LR4" (heavily
favored over targets of 75% or 50% the cost of 100GBASE-LR4). By heavily
favoring the most aggressive low-cost target, this vote further supports the
need for an "optimized solution" for this reach space. By
"optimized solution" I mean one which is free from constraints, e.g.
interoperability with other solutions. Though interoperability is desirable, an
interoperable solution is unlikely to achieve the cost target. In the 3 reach
spaces discussed so far, there is NO interoperability between copper/MMF,
MMF/SMF, or copper/SMF. Copper, MMF and SMF are optimized solutions. It will
likely take an optimized solution to satisfy this "mid-reach" space
at the desired costs. To repeat: This has the appearance of the emergence
of a new "reach space," which warrants its own optimized solution.
Since the reach target lies between "short reach" and "long
reach," "mi!
d reach" is a reasonable term
Without discussing specific technical solutions, it is
noteworthy that all 4 technical presentations last week for this
"mid-reach" space involved parallel SMF, which would not interoperate
with either 100GBASE-LR4, MMF, or copper. They would be optimized solutions,
and interest in their further work received the highest support in straw polls.
Given the high-density environment of datacenters, a solution for the mid-reach
space would have most impact if its operating power was sufficiently low to be
implemented in a form factor compatible with MMF and copper sockets.
Cheers, Jack