| Dan
We can go with 100GBase-SR10 cost if its cost has reach traditional Ethernet cost which is 10x BW 3X the cost. Otherwise it would be better to go back to the basic 100G-SR4 should be 3x the cost of 10GBase-SR and the new SMF PMD should be 3x the cost of 10Gbase-LR.
I expect both 100Gbase-SR10 and 100Gbase-LR4 would fail above criteria!
Thanks, Ali
On Feb 2, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Daniel Dove wrote:
Participants,
I should mention that my suggestion below to use 100GBASE-SR10 for
relative cost is not mandatory. It was a suggestion and should be
considered as one possible approach to relative cost assessment for
SR4.
For an SMF objective, the ad hoc should decide what it wishes to use
for relative cost assessment if anything.
In theory, having a common point for relative cost assessment is not
required. Each presenter can provide their best judgment, explain
how they came to it, and let the group determine whether they are
accurate. This approach is also acceptable.
Regards,
Dan Dove
On 2/2/12 2:43 PM, Daniel Dove wrote:
Dear Study Group Participants,
The draft minutes have been uploaded to our website at http://www.ieee802.org/3/100GNGOPTX/public/index.html.
Please take a moment to review and feedback any items to Kapil
Shrikhande our vice-chair.
For those who attended the Study Group meeting in Newport Beach,
you are aware that we ended without a wrap-up due to a call for
adjournment, second and lacking opposition, we adjourned. At the
time, I felt it would be better to gather our thoughts and focus
on how to move forward.
For those who did not attend, we were able to secure another
objective, "Define re-timed 4-lane 100G
PMA to PMA electrical interfaces for chip to chip and chip to
module applications". In addition, we saw many
presentations related to study for MMF and SMF objectives.
We ran a few straw-polls and essentially the outcome was that we
have additional work to come to consensus on either a SMF or MMF
objective. In addition, guidance was provided through the straw-polling,
but it may not have been specific to making progress as a team.
Rather, it was oriented towards the type of material we would like
to see. So, below I will address a proposal for making forward
progress using the information gleaned from our meeting.
Adhocs:
Multi-Mode ad hoc led by Jonathan King.
Single-Mode ad hoc led by Pete Anslow.
These two groups will solicit participation and meet via
teleconference to:
- Identify a straw-man objective that can gain
consensus
- Identify specific media/reach, market potential related to
that reach based on relative cost to SR10, technical
feasibility
- Identify presentation material that they believe will
convince the SG their objective is valid.
We need to avoid getting into "baseline proposal mode" where we
see our preferred alternative competing with the other
alternatives. The goal of SG presentations should not be not to
sell a proposal. They should be focused on demonstrating an
objective meets the 5 criteria with multiple approaches.
If these two groups can pull together a compelling set of
objectives, and presentations that demonstrate they meet the 5
criteria, we can then come together in March and work to identify
any remaining consensus opportunities that can be worked on for
the upcoming May meeting.
Presuming we can finalize our objectives, 5 criteria responses,
and get our PAR completed in May, we will be ready to pre-submit
and move toward a July PAR submittal.
Best Regards,
Dan Dove
Chair, IEEE 802.3 Next Generation Optical Ethernet Study Group
|