Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
Hi Paul,
I understand you argument. As a user,
I think we should be looking into this from another perspective.
What you are trying to do is to optimize
the cost of the entire 100 GbE (worldwide). This looks to me like one size
fits all. Many people are interested in optimizing the cost for their own
company and applications. If we offer them two choices (let say for the
sake of the argument one SMF, 2km and another MMF at 100 m), many
of them would feel there is only one choice, unless you are in mega data
center.
I am not sure that sizeable part of
the MMF community should subsidize the cost for few, which happens when
you look at the worldwide 100 GbE population. So, we need to consider what
granularity in solutions is acceptable. I do not think I have seen that
analysis.
I think the users should speak up on
this. As a user, I strongly believe that there is merit for two PMDs for
MMF. The longer reach MMF PMD can address the needs of some of the population
you are interested in, without worrying about the cost or power consumption
that much, yet will be competitive with SMF.
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:
"Kolesar, Paul"
<PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
02/24/2012 10:18 AM
Subject:
Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX]
SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
Hi Steve,
Your response illustrates my
point if one examines the cost situation a bit closer. It is not
sufficient to take a broad brush view that the SM optics will retain a
step function cost increase relative to MM optics, because the magnitude
of that step is critically important. As I tried to show in my contribution
at the last meeting in Newport Beach, the optimal reach objective for MM
changes as a function of that step size. When that SM step is about
5x there is parity in total cost (i.e. cost of all optics plus cost of
all cabling needed to build data center switch-to-switch channels) between
MM optics with a capability of 100 m and MM optics with a capability of
150 m. In other words we could choose either a 100 m objective or
a 150 m objective and get nearly the same total cost outcome. If
that step is larger than 5x, then a MM reach longer than 100 m is needed.
If that step is less than 5x then a MM reach of 100 m is optimal.
To me it not a question of
if the SM cost step will be reduced to 5x from its current magnitude,
for all prior Ethernet SM solutions have seen this occur. It is a
question of when. If the answer to “when” is projected to be so
far into the future that LR4 remains a hindrance to broad market potential
during the time when the market is projected to broaden, then that indicates
we either need another SM PMD with cost structures that can remove that
hindrance, or we need a MM objective that covers a greater portion of the
longer length channels than can be addressed with a 100 m solution.
So for me its all about understanding
the various SM solution cost projections over time. Give me that
information and I can make a sufficiently informed determination on the
optimal MM reach objective.
Regards,
Paul
From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)
[mailto:steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 8:14 AM
To: Kolesar, Paul; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
Hi Paul,
I don’t think it is nearly
so clear that you should decide SM first.
If there existed a SM solution
that was cost-competitive with a MM solution at some reach, it would be
a game changer, and those developing MM solutions would surely like to
know if the game will change before getting too far down the path. But
most seem to believe that the game will not change, and even if it did,
it is hard to prove because it is difficult to compare relative costs of
dissimilar technologies.
Most still seem to believe
(in spite of the interesting technology from Opnext) that there will be
a significant step function from MM to SM that will keep people from wanting
to use it in data centers. Furthermore, if you need a different cable type,
for example, for a 70m link than you need for a 100m link, that creates
its own kind of problem.
So if the game does not change,
then SR4 needs to try to address most, if not all, of the reach currently
addressed by SR10. If it turns out not to be technically or economically
feasible to do that (e.g., if you could only get 60 or 70m out of the beast
within reasonable cost, size and power), then if SM is to replace MM above
that reach, it needs to get down to a cost to compete with an SR10 with
a reverse gearbox. Even if SM does this, it isn’t clear they will get
all of that market because of a likely reluctance to mix cable types in
the data center – maybe they are happier to use SR10 with a reverse gearbox
to reuse their existing cabling.
Regards,
Steve
From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:49 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
Jonathan,
While I understand the desire
to find a launching point for the discussion, this poll is approaching
the problem in the wrong order because we need to know what the single-mode
objective is first.
A purpose of the Study Group
is to set objectives that will allow us to establish cost-optimized 100GE.
One cannot logically pick cost-optimized MM objectives without first
having framework around the SM optics that will be used to address channels
with lengths that exceed the MM reach. At this point, we have not
even established if we will have a SM objective. In other words,
we don’t know if the existing LR4 will remain the only one, or if there
will be another one added. Only when the SM situation is established
can we know the minimum capability that a new MM optic must fulfill to
optimize cost.
I suggest that we first conduct
such a poll for SM and use it to start the objective discussion in the
SM ad-hoc. If that produces solid results, then undertake the same
endeavor for MM.
Regards,
Paul
From: Jonathan King [mailto:jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:13 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
Importance: High
Dear all,
On the Feb 14th MMF ad hoc
call , it seemed like we were beginning to converge on a possible
objective for MMF .
In the next meeting (Tuesday
28th Feb), I’d like to see if we can finalize a strawman MMF
objective. To that end I’ll prepare a presentation which we
can review during the call which will include a strawman objective
for review on the call, together with an overview of how it addresses the
5 criteria – to help get the best starting point for that discussion I’d
like to get your responses to the questions below questions:
The strawman objective will
follow the wording in Anslow_01_0111
Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s
PHY for operation over OMX
MMF with lengths up to
at least Y m
1)
A reasonable MMF
reach objective (i.e. the value of Y)
would be
a.
100m
b.
Significantly less
than 100m (what reach?)
c.
Significantly more
than 100m (what reach ?)
d.
decided in the task
force
2)
The MMF type should
be
a.
decided in the task
force
b.
OM3
c.
OM4
d.
at least as good
as OM4
Please send your responses
to me directly at: jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx
I will collate and report
the results but will not reveal any individual’s responses.
If you feel uncomfortable
expressing an opinion, say so and I’ll note that.
To repeat, this is
not a formal poll or vote, just intended to give us the best starting point
for discussion on Tuesday.
Please send your responses
as soon as possible, and at least by close of business on Monday 27th
Feb, 2012
Many thanks !
Jonathan King
MMF ad hoc chair, Next Gen
100G Optics
From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:10 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF Ad Hoc and MMF Ad Hoc meetings
Hi,
Following on from the meetings
on 14 February, Jonathan and I are planning to hold an SMF Ad Hoc meeting
immediately followed by an MMF Ad Hoc meeting (1 hour each) starting at
8:00 am Pacific on Tuesday 28 February.
If you would like to present
a contribution at the SMF ad hoc, please send it to me and for the MMF
ad hoc, send it to Jonathan.
Peter Anslow from Ciena has invited you
to join a meeting on the Web, using WebEx. Please join the meeting 5-10
minutes early so we may begin on time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic: "SMF Ad Hoc followed by MMF Ad Hoc"
Date & Time: Tuesday, 28 February 2012 at 16:00, GMT Time (London,
GMT)
To join web meeting click here: https://ciena.webex.com/ciena/j.php?ED=136667227&UID=0&PW=NMGZjOWUwNDM2&RT=MTgjMjE%3D
Meeting password: IEEE (please note passwords are case sensitive)
Teleconference: Call-in number:
+44-203-4333547 (United Kingdom)
4438636577 (United States)
2064450056 (Canada)
Conference Code: 207 012 5535
Meeting number: 683 690 763
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Additional Notes:
- To add this meeting to your calendar program click the following link,
or copy the link and paste it into your Web browser: https://ciena.webex.com/ciena/j.php?ED=136667227&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=18&ST=1&SHA2=zxju/MpyUhnp7ROB7hR78ViLpXBupiLpj4OEPm0zSJ8=&RT=MTgjMjE%3D
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Australia, Brisbane : 0730870163
Australia, Melbourne :
0383380011
Australia, Sydney :
0282386454
Austria, Vienna :
01253021727
Belgium, Brussels :
028948259
Bulgaria, Sofia : 024917751
Canada, All Cities :
2064450056
China, All Cities Domestic
: 8008706896
China, All Cities Domestic
: 4006920013
Czech Republic, Prague :
228882153
Denmark, Copenhagen :
32727639
Estonia, Tallinn :
6682564
Finland, Helsinki :
0923193023
France, Paris : 0170375518
Germany, Berlin :
03030013082
Germany, Frankfurt :
06924437355
Hong Kong, Hong Kong :
85230730462
Hungary, Budapest :
017789269
India, Bangalore :
08039418300
India, Chennai - Primary
: 04430062138
India, Mumbai :
02239455533
India, New Delhi :
01139418310
Ireland, Dublin :
015269460
Israel, Tel Aviv : 37630760
Italy, Milan :
0200661900
Japan, Tokyo : 0345808383
Korea (South), All Cities
: 0264903634
Latvia, Riga :
66013622
Lithuania, Vilnius :
52055461
Luxembourg, Luxembourg :
20881245
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur :
0348190063
Netherlands, Amsterdam :
0207946527
New Zealand, Auckland :
099291734
Norway, Oslo : 21033950
Poland, Warsaw :
223070121
Romania, Bucharest :
318144966
Russian Federation, Moscow
: 4992701688
Singapore, All Cities :
6568829970
Slovak Republic, Bratislava
: 0233418490
Slovenia, Ljubljana :
016003971
Spain, Barcelona :
935452633
Spain, Madrid : 911146624
Sweden, Stockholm :
0850512711
Switzerland, Bellinzona :
0912611463
United Kingdom, All Cities
: 08443386571
United Kingdom, All Cities
: 02034333547
United States, All Cities
: 4438636577
Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh : 84838012419
Regards,
Pete Anslow |
Senior Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street |
London, EC2A 2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535 |