| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Jeff The problem with lock-out codes is that every System OEM has their own specifications, with widely varying degrees of understanding of modern encryption techniques and attention to design detail.
What is required is a common encryption optical module specification, based on well understood encryption techniques, which is carefully architected and specified. One possibility is to include this in a future MDIO release. I will raise this in the CFP MSA to see if there is interest by System OEMs in developing a common encryption MDIO specification. Other MSAs, like SFF Committee may also consider taking a look at this. If more than one organization starts this effort, we would benefit by close liaison to insure as much commonality as possible.
From: Jeffery Maki [mailto:jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx] 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] 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] 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. 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, |