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
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
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]
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 10:54 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Agenda & Schedule Updated
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.
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Dove <ddove@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Chris,
As Brad said, the agenda is subject to review & approval by the Task Force.
The rules I chose to prioritize were the most fair I could come up with as it gave proponents the opportunity to build their own supporter's list, and also it created an incentive to build consensus.
We are going to be pretty challenged for time as our room is going to be shut down at 7p. Once I land in Geneva, I will start working on additional space for continuing our meetings later than 7p.
Brad, I believe your assertion regarding whether or not our project has met its objectives without an additional SMF PMD is based on an opinion. The Study Group clearly stated in our PAR/5C documents that LR4 with a CAUI-4 electrical interface would lower the cost, power and size and thereby potentially meet our objective. The language clearly stated that an additional PMD would only come if it provided sufficient differential in cost/power/density to be justified by the Task Force. So far, the Task Force has not deemed any alternative to meet the necessary criteria.
Perhaps this meeting?
To be successful in adopting an SMF baseline proposal, those who are promoting new PMD approaches should be working to build consensus, and alleviate concerns of those who are not taking a position at this time.
All,
We are going to be very tight for time, so figuring out how to proceed in an orderly and efficient manner is crucial. At this time, we have an agenda and schedule. We can consider re-prioritization of the presentations, Chris' mini-presentation, Mark's Q&A only, or some other means but if we spend more than about 15 minutes discussing it, we may be losing the ability to even complete what is on the agenda.
I kind of like Mark's Q&A idea as it puts the load on us to read/review/develop questions outside the normal course of the meeting. Seems like a potentially efficient approach.
Please, think about it, talk to others about it, and feel free to contact me directly as well.
Regards,
Dan Dove (in DC, getting ready to get back in the air)
On 7/13/13 1:12 PM, Mark Nowell (mnowell) wrote:
Chris,
Agree with your concerns about the compressed time for this part of the
meeting and realize why Dan has to do it as he has done, and said he would.
I'd feel the limited time would be put to better use with 7 mins of
discussion on each presentation rather then the presenting of it. We can
all review the material beforehandŠ
Mark
On 7/13/13 10:47 AM, "Chris Cole" <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Task Force Participants,
The limited time Thursday AM means that we will not get to hear most of
the presentations in support of expected SMF PMD motions in the last
hour of the meeting. These presentations reflect considerable work on
the part of their authors to provide information to the Task Force
Participants for basing their votes.
I would like to offer for Task Force consideration an alternate
organization of the Thursday AM session.
Each presentation would be allocated 7 minutes. To minimize set-up time,
the chair would briefly show the title page and then display the
summary/concluding slide to which the author would then speak for a few
minutes and take clarifying questions. This requires the TF Participants
to read through the presentations ahead of time. The next presenter
would walk up to the podium and get ready to speak to his presentation
while the current speaker was finishing answering questions. The chair
would rigidly enforce the 7 minute time allocation. The presenter would
have the option to elect not to have any Q&A time, but rather have the
chair flash through their presentation while they briefly highlight key
points on their slides. Again, the 7minute time allocation would be
rigidly enforced.
If we keep the Agenda and Housekeeping motions to 20mins, and the Break
to 10mins, that gives us 90mins in the 9AM to 11AM slot before motions
>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
be tweaked.
Thank you
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Dove [mailto:ddove@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 11:54 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Agenda & Schedule Updated
Dear Task Force Participants,
An update to the Agenda and Schedule has been uploaded at <
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bm/public/jul13/dove_01a_0713_optx.pdf > to
include the results of prioritization and explanation of scheduling for
SMF baseline presentations.
Like many of you, I will soon be traveling and unavailable so if you
have any questions or concerns, please notify me prior to 5pm this
evening PDT.
Best Regards,
Dan Dove
Chair, IEEE P802.3bm