| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All, I struggled with the cost basis question
while I prepared my contribution to the just-past meeting. I considered
using either 10GBASE-SR or 100GBASE-SR10 as the basis. In reviewing
contributions on transceivers (a.k.a. PMDs) I noticed that there was a tendency
to use 100GBASE-SR10. So to make it straight forward I decided to also
use 100GBASE-SR10 as the cost basis for the cabling cost analysis portion of the
Solution Set Analyzer called “Kolesar Kalculator 2012_01_25” in the
tools folder on our web site. This spreadsheet analysis tool allows one
to get a complete channel cost analysis that includes the transceiver modules
and the cabling that connects them. See http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/100GNGOPTX/public/tools/index.html Therefore, to use this tool to get a
complete cost comparison, the cost basis comparison of transceiver modules must
also be entered relative to 100GBASE-SR10. I offer this tool as a means to get
various cost projections on the same playing field. My rationale is that
using a common analysis tool will remove some of the variability factors that
cloud the cost picture. This should allow us to make more confident and less
contentious decisions regarding reach objectives that often contain significant
consideration of the trade-off between reach and cost. The analysis that I included at the end of
my user’s-guide contribution “Solution Set Analyzer Update (revised)”
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/100GNGOPTX/public/jan12/kolesar_01a_0112_NG100GOPTX.pdf indicates that the optimal reach objective
for a possible future 100GBASE-SR4 is heavily dependent on the cost of the
single-mode transceivers that will be needed to satisfy channel lengths that
exceed -SR4 capability. I stressed this point at the conclusion of my
presentation, and I bring it up here again, because the structure of the ad-hocs
mentioned by Dan compartmentalizes and separates the MM from the SM
studies. While this seems like a natural and traditional organization structure,
and there is overlap among those involved, I would like all involved to keep
this fact in mind: These are not independent silos. They are highly
interdependent parts of the whole data center ecosystem and must be treated
that way in order to arrive at an optimal solution set. So I encourage folks in both ad-hocs to
apply the Solution Set Analyzer to sets of PMDs (both MM and SM) that are
needed to provide complete data center channel coverage. With sufficient
cross-pollination between the ad-hocs, each should be able to keep informed of
the other’s relevant contributions in a timely way. Regards, Paul From: Daniel Dove [mailto:ddove@xxxxxxx] Hi Ali, 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, Dear Study Group Participants,
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.
|