| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Chris, My comment is not a comment on the solution, as much on the state of the project documentation in relation to where things are at. The 5C are a living document and need to be in sync with where the project is at. IMHO of course. John From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx] Hi John, I share your opinion about future interfaces. “And I do not believe that the current –LR4 solution with a x4 interface will even be close to a solution for the data center until probably the end of the decade.” However, it is not only LR4 with an x4 interface that will not even be close. No x4 lane PMD and no x4 interface will even be close as the solution for the data center. The solution will either be x2 lane PMD with an x2 interface, or x1 lane PMD with an x1 interface. Not even for 40GbE will existing x4 solutions be close. When 40G server I/O volume crosses 10G server I/O volume, it will be based on single lane PMD with an x1 interface. This is great news for 802.3 Participants because there will be lots of exciting future projects and standards to develop, and we will all continue to have many opportunities to enjoy each other’s company. This is of course all personal opinion. Chris From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:John_DAmbrosia@xxxxxxxx] Interesting thread to follow – Actually – I have to support Brad regarding the statements of the project documentation needing updating. It is not just about meeting objectives – it is meeting objectives while meeting all criteria responses. First, Item #5 of BMP states 100 Gb/s Ethernet optical PHY types utilizing a 4 x 25 Gb/s electrical interface, and optimized SMF interfaces will reduce cost, size and power for links in the growing Data Center market and provide a balance in cost between network equipment and attached stations. IMHO – it isn’t that alternatives haven’t been proposed – it is that no solution has achieved consensus. And I do not believe that the current –LR4 solution with a x4 interface will even be close to a solution for the data center until probably the end of the decade. I will also note that the statement is clear – an optimized SMF interface. If nothing is approved and the TF goes forward without doing an SMF interface. Perhaps the choice of word of “interface” over PHY was specific, however, it is not clear, given the mention of the 4x25 interface prior to the optimized sMF interface. I agree with Brad, the document without “an optimized SMF interface” does not match its 5C statements in their entirety. Now Robert’s comment is interesting because he points to a carrier and comments about client optics. If you want to say these links exist in data center fine- but the data presented between the .3ba and .3bm TF’s were not just talking about 100G for those connections, they were talking about in their networks as well. So in my opinion Robert’s statement would support a BMP statement focused on the “growing client optics market.” This would be a change to the 5C. Next, let’s look at the statement Dan pointed to which is #6 under Distinct Identity – 6. The amendment will enable new PHY types over SMF which consist of the existing 100GBASELR4 and 100GBASE-ER4 optical PMDs with The amendment will define a new 100 Gb/s SMF PMD in addition to these if it can be shown that a SMF PMD with a shorter reach than 100GBASE-LR4 has sufficient cost, density, or power difference to justify an additional SMF PMD type. The problem with this statement is that no new PHY type is being created by changing CAUI from 10 lanes to 4 lanes. CAUI is an optional physical instantiation. A new CAUI would only be another option – not another PHY type. Something that would be better is - The amendment will define a new 100 Gb/s SMF PMD in addition to these if it can be shown that a SMF PMD with a shorter reach than 100GBASE-LR4 has sufficient cost, density, or power difference to justify an additional SMF PMD type. The amendment will create a new optional physical instantiation, based on four electrical interconnect lanes in each direction, which will enable implementations that help to reduce cost and power, while improving density for implementations of existing SMF PHY types or based on the new 100 Gb/s SMF PMD. These changes to the 5C responses, IMHO, would bring the document in sync with the 5C responses, which I could support. I am still disappointed that consensus on a solution to address 100G inside data center networks (not client optics) has not been reached yet. However, I would be further disappointed if the current solution went out being represented as the solution for the data center need. John From: Brad Booth [mailto:bbooth@xxxxxxxx] Dan, Correct. My statement was based on an opinion. An opinion of someone who has been through this process more than once. :-) If the LR4 and CAUI4 satisfies the objective, then the task force will need to make that decision with a 75% consensus. In my opinion, any proposal and that includes LR4 with CAUI4 requires 75% approval. It would be very dangerous to simply state that the task force didn't pick an alternative; therefore, LR4 with CAUI4 is the winner. As part of the process, the task force has to agree with a 75% majority that LR4 with CAUI4 satisfies the objective. Thanks, On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Dove <ddove@xxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Chris, Chris, Dear Task Force Participants, >from 11AM to 12N. With 7 minute slots, this lets us hear all 12 presentations in support of various SMF PMD proposals. These numbers can |