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
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!
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