Hi Ali,
I don't think the 10x vs 3x model applies to new PMDs for a given
speed.
What is important is that we believe we can achieve Broad Market
Potential, Economic Feasibility, and Technical Feasibility for any
particular objective we produce. (assuming distinct identity and
compatibility are met)
First, we need to convince ourselves of this. Then, we need to
convince 802.3 and the SEC.
Dan
On 2/2/12 8:33 PM, Ali Ghiasi wrote:
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
|