Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

[Brad Booth <Brad_Booth@xxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

 

I can only represent the feedback that I get from our customers. We play in a slightly different market, and one of the things our customers have stated is that AOCs are a pain to work with and would prefer to not be forced into using them.

 

Cheers,

Brad

 

 

From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve) [mailto:steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 7:51 AM
To: Booth, Brad; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Hi Brad,

 

> If there is market potential for an AOC to provide a short reach solution, then there is probably market potential for the study group to consider a short reach objective.

I’m not sure that necessarily follows. The bar is far lower to come up with an AOC, since the AOC vendor just needs to meet the CAUI spec at each end and what they do in the middle is their business (and may rely on whatever tricks and techniques that particular vendor is good at). Whether all vendors pick the same methods inside of the AOC is irrelevant.

The bar is much higher for a short reach objective: you would need to have confidence that you can make the same thing work based on a “least common denominator” of what the various suppliers can do and that you can write an interoperable spec around that that allows the two ends to come from different vendors, and that you have confidence you can get 75% to agree to do it the same way with an acceptable amount of debate to get there. It is not clear that you could ever make this solution as cheap as one where the same vendor has control of the entire link and can optimize the solution based on their own capabilities.

Regards,
Steve