Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
Jeff,
Probably a way around it would be to
have interoperability objective and precluding the vendor from claiming
standard compliance (if they use lock codes). Not sure that this will solve
the problem though. But it will have some impact if a component is labeled
"X" standard non-compliant - I don't know if customers would
then buy non-compliant parts.
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:
Jeffery Maki <jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
02/28/2012 01:01 PM
Subject:
Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX]
SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
All,
Lock out codes can be employed
with even pluggable transceivers. So, we would be defining a standard
that would actually enable continued behavior that the end customer finds
to be a “bitter” experience. They would have to buy and stock two
different system specific modules, a different one for each end. It
sounds to me like the real industry solution is to be found elsewhere.
Jeff
From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:20 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
Stephen,
Your points are well taken.
It’s not expected that an interoperable very short reach PMD standard
would produce a solution as cheap as AOCs.
But such a standard provides
a potentially lower cost alternative to an SR4 with longer reach, depending
on the technology boosts that are used, while solving a very real problem.
The trouble with AOCs is that if port-lock-out policies are in force,
both ends of the channel must plug into the same brand of switch or server.
That is an unattractive constraint customers face with surprise at
first followed by bitterness. They fault IEEE for not doing its job
to ensure interoperability. A very short reach solution would remedy
that by providing an interoperable alternative to AOCs. The customer
gets the best of both world: AOCs when the brand is common at both
ends, and a lower cost interoperable solution when they are not.
Regards,
Paul
From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)
[mailto:steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 7:51 AM
To: 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