| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I am having trouble resolving the large
discrepancy that I have found between publically available cost figures on
distributors websites and the Light Counting figures that are being quoted.
They differ by a factor of 3. If I apply the same discounting projections used
by Chris to these public numbers, I get a 15x relative cost to SR10, not 5x.
Why do the LC numbers differ so much from the current public numbers? Paul Kolesar From: As one of the few vendors of SR-10 CFP /
CXP, Reflex can agree with those ratios (100GE-LR4 to 100GE-SR10) of roughly
16x now, dropping towards 5x (for 100GE-LR4 to 100GE-SR4/SR10) probably by late
2013 early 2014. (As much as it pains me to agree with anything
Mr. Cole says) J Thanks, Rob ============================================ Robert B. Coenen,
Ph. D. Vice President,
Sales and Marketing Reflex Photonics
Inc. Office:
1-408-501-8886 Cellular:
1-408-455-3155 Fax: 1-408-501-8808 Email:
rcoenen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THINK ENVIRONNEMENT BEFORE PRINTING - PENSONS ENVIRONNEMENT
AVANT D’IMPRIMER From: Chris Cole
[mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx] It could be helpful
to future cost comparison exercises if we had a common set of assumptions on
relative cost. Scott Kipp initiated off-line discussion by proposing ratios in
his presentation. This gave us the opportunity to look up Lightcounting (LC)
numbers for several optical interfaces which I would like to use in a proposal
below. For 2012, LC
projects the cost ratio of SFP+ 10GE-LR to SFP+ 10GE-SR as ~3x. The raw
LC 2012 cost ratio projection for 40GE-LR4 to 40GE-SR4 is about 6x. Since the
40GE-LR4 cost blends CFP and QSFP+ form factors, our view is that the a more
accurate market cost ratio in 2012 for QSFP+ only based modules for 40GE-LR4 to
40GE-SR4 will be about 4x. The raw LC 2012 cost
projection for 100GE-LR4 (discrete EML based) to 100GE-SR10 is about 16x. The
LR4 cost is primarily CFP based and the SR10 cost is primarily CXP based. If we
wanted to factor out differences in form factor cost, 10x would be a more
reasonable ratio. If we assume a 2x cost reduction from discrete EML to DFB
laser PIC, this leads to a cost ratio of about 5x. Based on this, the
proposal is that we use a long term cost ratio of 5x for 100GE-LR4 (Gen2 DFB
laser PIC based) to 100GE-SR4. The mid-term cost ratio proposal is also 5x for
100GE-LR4 (Gen2 DFB laser PIC based) to 100GE-SR10 in similar packaging, and 8x
for 100GE-LR4 CFP Gen2 to 100GE-SR10 CXP. It would be
worthwhile for others to review our interpretation of LC numbers, and to have
additional off-line discussions to tweak the above ratios to enable apples to
apples cost comparisons in future presentations.
Chris From: Ali Ghiasi [mailto:aghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Jeff Some very valid points but regard to your item 7. When the host ASIC/switch I/O due to capacity moves to 25G then your
option are either use an inverse gearbox with 100G-SR10 or use 100GBase-SR4. This is the time I expect most
will move to 100G-SR4 if it exist. Thanks, Ali On Jan 25, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Jeffery Maki wrote: All, I think we are
nearly a potential epiphany based on a “bottoms up” review of material
presented in the study group. Let’s listen openly to the presentations,
and outline encouragingly where we would like to see more material/data. In my opinion, 1. 100GBASE-SR10 CXP
should be the basis of all relative cost comparison for any potential SMF
Objective or any potential MMF Objective. 2. The relative cost of 100GBASE-LR4 to 100GBASE-SR10 should be
understood for any potential common form factor, and I will note that relative
cost does depend upon form factor. 3. Comparing to 100GBASE-LR4 misses the point of the study point
that I believe is best known as “datacenter reach extension.”
“100GBASE-nR4” was not meant to replace 100GBASE-LR4 but fill in where parallel
optics either fail to perform or market acceptance of parallel fiber does not
exist where I presume duplex SMF for “100GBASE-nR4.” Low cost, low power,
and compactness (CFP4/QSFP) are paramount or the potential standard will not be
adopted by the market. 4. We should realize that 100GBASE-SR10 will live as a deployed,
durable, standard for years to come and likely shall see follow on
implementations beyond CXP. 5. Parallel 4x25G SMF optics are showing potential merit at present
as a viable proposal for interconnects in cases where the bulk of parallel
fiber is acceptable. 6. “100GBASE-SR4” needs to be proven and at present its potential
contender is parallel 4x25G SMF optics. 7. I would like to learn which markets will stick
with 100GBASE-SR10 and which markets will move to or develop around
“100GBASE-SR4.” Jeff Juniper Networks |