While I can appreciate the various
perspectives on cost comparison baselines, some preferring mature technology,
some preferring form factor commonality, here we have a situation that warrants
different considerations. Here we are studying possible additional 100G
solutions. The operative word is “additional”. This
means we already have existing solutions to compare to. By using these
existing solutions as comparatives we can directly tell if we are indeed projecting
lower costs. If we do not get favorable projections, then the
justification for a project with an aim of optimization (i.e. doing better than
before) would loose a critical support structure. That loss may not kill
the project, because it may still proceed due to density improvements, but it
would be a big wound.
While Petar and Chris agree on the use of
QSFP+, I think they do so for very different reasons. I will hazard a
guess and say that Petar may want a 4-lane migration path. For Chris, his
past arguments have been based on projections to future generation optics in
different packaging. Both valid, but their convergence is
coincidental.
We can take any baseline and apply it uniformly.
But as long as the baseline is stable over the timeframe of our studies, why introduce
more obscurity with “currency” conversion? Is stability the
problem? Given what may be reasonably close and respectable volumes of multimode
optics units being sold into HPC for 4x10G and 10x(or 12x)10G, they are likely
just as good to use as baselines from a stability perspective. So I’d
argue to stay with 10GBASE-SR10 as baseline.
Regards,
Paul
From: Chris Cole
[mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012
12:05 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX]
Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
Peter,
I fully agree with
you.
The right comparison
is with 40GE-SR4 QSFP+ and 40GE-LR4 QSFP+.
Chris
From: Petar
Pepeljugoski [mailto:petarp@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012
9:30 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX]
Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
Hi Ali,
I
agree with you. We need to find the proper comparison. For one, I think the
lowest cost at one time was 4GFC, (although today, per gigabit its cost is too
high relative to some other solutions that appeared recently).
I also
agree with Dan Dove that the 10x perfromancce 3x cost model does not hold any
more, at least in the environment I am interested in. I can't imagine the 4x25G
solution to be more expensive than 10x10. If it is, we are doing something
wrong. By all accounts, it should cost less (smaller number of components,
smaller footprint, smaller number of fibers in the MMF cable). In my opinion (I
know some people will disagree), proper comparison is with 4x10.
If we
develop standard around that cost model, I believe people will start developing
custom solutions that address their cost targets. This will further fragment
the market and increase the cost for the standard.
Regards,
Peter
Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218
(mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road,
Rte. 134 (shipping)
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
e-mail: petarp@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax: (914)-945-4134
From: Ali Ghiasi
<aghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 02/03/2012
12:10 PM
Subject: Re:
[802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
Paul/Dan
My concern by using 100Gbase-SR10 which is high cost we are creating too low a
bar. The situation is even
worse if you look at 100G-LR4 with its astronomical cost!
I prefer still for any cost comparison to go to 10Gbase-SR/LR something were
its cost close to earth than moon.
Thanks,
Ali
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:03 AM, Kolesar, Paul
wrote:
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]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:41 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward
Direction
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:
1.
Identify a straw-man objective
that can gain consensus
2.
Identify specific media/reach, market
potential related to that reach based on relative cost to SR10, technical
feasibility
3.
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