If copper fits in a QSFP+ then of course
it will also fit into larger forms, and it is not restricted. But for access
switch ports, which is where copper would be deployed, then higher density is a
big driver due to blade server density trends.
From: Chris Cole
[mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012
7:18 PM
To: Kolesar,
Paul
Cc: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] -
MMF Ad Hoc - 17th Jan meeting timing
What is the basis for your statement that 100G copper is restricted to
QSFP+?
John,
Thanks so much for this exploration, which
addresses just the sort of questions that have been puzzling me. In fact
I was wishing for a good comparison to SR10 just today. I see some good
parallels to Ali’s work emerging.
While it is not clear to me how much
support exists for FEC behind optical interfaces, it would be quite helpful if
your material could address how the addition or substitution of FEC affects the
numbers. If the outcome is that FEC allows QSFP+ form factor, then that
seems to enable common forms between fiber and copper media, which to me look
like a big advantage to the user and vendor, if not for near-term aggregation
switch ports at least for future server and access switch ports.
I also request the same clarification as
Jeff. If you need assistance with cabling cost particulars, I can
help. I have been analyzing cabling costs in my efforts to add such
analysis to the solution analyzer spreadsheet. A reasonable assumption
for the cost of SR4 cabling is ~40% of SR10 cabling cost.
Regards,
Paul
From: Jeffery Maki
[mailto:jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012
6:12 PM
To: John Petrilla; Jonathan King; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
a_flatman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Amezcua, A. (Adrian); Anslow, Peter; Anthony Torza; Bernstein, Gary; Brad Booth; Daniel Dove; Ephrem Wu; Gary Nicholl (gnicholl); Harry Fu; Jack Jewell; Keith Nellis; Kolesar, Paul; Lian Zhao; Martin Gilpatric; mike.dudek@xxxxxxxxxx; mnowell@xxxxxxxxx; Oren Sela; Piers Dawe; Rick.Pimpinella@xxxxxxxxxxx;
Robert Coenen;
ryan.latchman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Scott Kipp;
Shmuel Levy;
Sudeep Bhoja;
Vipul Bhatt
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] -
MMF Ad Hoc - 17th Jan meeting timing
John,
Great effort.
On your slide 2, can
you make clear whether your conclusion includes the MMF cabling cost?
Jeff
From: John Petrilla
[mailto:john.petrilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012
3:03 PM
To: Jonathan King; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
a_flatman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Amezcua, A. (Adrian); Anslow, Peter; Anthony Torza; Bernstein, Gary; Brad Booth; Daniel Dove; Ephrem Wu; Gary Nicholl (gnicholl); Harry Fu; Jack Jewell; Jeffery Maki; Keith Nellis; Kolesar, Paul; Lian Zhao; Martin Gilpatric; mike.dudek@xxxxxxxxxx; mnowell@xxxxxxxxx; Oren Sela; Piers Dawe; Rick.Pimpinella@xxxxxxxxxxx;
Robert Coenen;
ryan.latchman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Scott Kipp;
Shmuel Levy;
Sudeep Bhoja;
Vipul Bhatt
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] -
MMF Ad Hoc - 17th Jan meeting timing
Hello Jonathan
Attached is a draft
presentation prepared for the Newport Beach
meeting. Although I’m not sure of my schedule/availability for Tuesday
morning, I would appreciate feedback from any who care to offer some.
Have MMF ad hoc
conference contact details for Tuesday been distributed?
Regards,
John
Dear all
A reminder
that there will be an MMF ad hoc meeting on Tuesday 17th Jan
2012, from 8am to 10.30 am PCT, in order to minimize the overlap with a
concurrent OIF meeting.
If you have material
to present, please let me know before hand.
Thanks
Jonathan
+1 408 368 3071
|