RE: [10GBASE-T] September interim meeting
pat
I agree that we need to see some investigation and presentations on power
consumption. We do not need to agree on exact numbers but should explore
what is possible.
Bruce
t 02:35 PM 7/31/2003 -0600, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
Bruce,
I think I agree that data centers are enough to
fulfill broad market potential for 10GBASE-T. For some years to come, I
think that (plus perhaps some switch-to-switch connection if the media
and distance supports it) would be the main volume.
On power, I don't mean that someone needs to
show that they can produce today a low power 10GBASE-T transceiver. While
the first 1000BASE-T transceivers used an uncomfortable amount of power,
I don't think they used so much that I couldn't put them on a
card.
I'm not expecting exact numbers. What I would
like to see for PAR approval is some estimates from potential
implementers to show that, given expected technology improvements over
the next couple of years, it will be possible to produce transceivers (in
about the time frame that we expect to be finishing the standard) that
can be used on a card - though perhaps at levels higher than those we
would all like to see long run.
There are times when we goof and standardize
something that is so far from what the market needs that it doesn't have
enough volume to get produced and improved. There are other times where
the initial parts aren't ideal but they are good enough to start building
a market and invest in improving it. The first 1000BASE-T PHYs were at
least good enough to be deployed. I would like a reasonable comfort level
that the 10GBASE-T PHYs will be over that hump.
Regards,
Pat
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Bruce Tolley
[mailto:btolley@cisco.com]
- Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:12 AM
- To: pat_thaler@agilent.com; yousefi@broadcom.com;
pat_thaler@agilent.com; btolley@cisco.com; bradley.booth@intel.com;
stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
- Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] September interim meeting
- Pat
- Thanks for providing detail on data centers. I would argue that in
terms of broad market potential, 10GBASE-T would pass muster even if the
only market application was data centers.
- On the power issue, the first 1000BASE-T implementations did not
appear until well after the standard was done, some 5 years after the
High Speed Study Group got its PAR, and consumed an obscene about of
power. We might have never achieved the low power 1000BASE-T PHYs
we have today if we had tried to agree on exact numbers in 1996.
- Bruce
- At 11:00 AM 7/31/2003 -0600, pat_thaler@agilent.com
wrote:
- Nariman,
-
- CX4 is useful especially when we have in rack connections to make or
ones going to the next rack. However, the distance is too short for many
other data center connects. Also, the cable for the long distance is
relatively bulky which may be a problem for some uses. We will be glad to
get it, but it only solves a corner of the problem space.
-
- Something for the longer distances in data centers that is lower cost
than fiber would be useful. For that environment, it doesn't necessarily
have to rely on already installed wiring. Running on existing wiring is
nice, but not essential.
-
- My view of the important items for the data center
environment:
-
- It must perform solidly on the media we choose for it - data
integrity factors such as BER must be
met.
- It must be able to live on "standard" server bus adapter
formats with a TOE: e.g. PCI Express and Infiniband
- which means power is a
concern
- It must be transparent to existing MACs - that is, the MAC must see
the same behavior it sees with 10 Gig
fiber.
- 100 m would be desireable (partly to enable future horizontal usage)
but the data center could live with shaving something off that. (100 m is
nice from a standards development standpoint as it saves us from arguing
about what lower number is enough.)
- The media it runs over should not be so stiff or bulky that it is a
problem to accomodate with normal rack and data center cable
management.
- Of couse it must also meet EMI requirements
-
- Regards,
- Pat
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Nariman Yousefi
[mailto:yousefi@broadcom.com]
- Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 8:10 PM
- To: pat_thaler@agilent.com; btolley@cisco.com;
bradley.booth@intel.com; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
- Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] September interim meeting
- Pat,
- I agree that the issues you raised must be addressed by November. One
of the biggest challenges for this group is to establish reality on
technical feasibility on Cat7, Cat6 and Cat5e channels. Different
vendors have different conclusion on Technical feasibility. That is due
to assumptions on alien cross talk mitigation techniques, impact on
implementation impairments on SNR, channel model, coding gain, and
analysis on chip complexity in a given process. Assumptions must be
stated clearly by vendors that present technical feasibility. In this
case, technical feasibility drives the broad market potential.
Technical feasibility must be addressed at least based on the following
criteria:
- 1. Achievable distance on Class D channel with and without
installation mitigation techniques.
- 2. Achievable distance on Class E channel with and without
installation mitigation techniques.
- 3. Transceiver complexity in terms of estimated power dissipation and
realistic targets for building blocks like ADC, PLL and etc 2-3 years
from now.
- We reached a conclusion that cat7 cable or class F channel has high
enough capacity for 10Gbps operation. But, can a transceiver be
built with reasonable power dissipation and cost say in 90nm process or
finer geometries to achieve broad market potential?
- We need to keep in mind that customers have fiber and CX4 as
alternatives.
- Nariman
- At 01:08 PM 7/30/2003 -0600, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
- Bruce,
- Generally, when the group can agree on clear objectives, then they
can finish the rest of the work. Fuzzy objectives often indicate a lack
of real concensus.
- In November, I will also be expecting arguments that support the 5
criteria based on the objectives -
- especially:
- Broad market potential - evidence that there will be a broad market
the minimum requirements of the objectives are met.
- Technical feasibility - is it feasible to meet those minimum
requirements
- Economic feasibility - when you have met the minimum requirements
will cost be suitable to make it a viable product in the markets?
- In the discussions at the plenary, a power consumption issue was
raised by some of the speakers.
- If the broad market potential is based in part on use in devices such
as end nodes (including servers in data centers), then an objective for
power consumption such that this can reside in server card formats would
be important. Can it fit within the power constraints of a PCI Express
board and an Infiniband board (remembering that one has to allow some
power for the MAC and probably TOE/RDMAP engine)?
- Looking at the objectifves in agenda_1_07_03, I don't see any that
address power consumption or the abilitiy to live on server card formats.
In a quick search, I also didn't find any material on power consumption
in the presentations that have been made to the study group. I hope that
in September the group will address the issue of power.
- Regards,
- Pat
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Bruce Tolley
[mailto:btolley@cisco.com]
- Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:22 PM
- To: Booth, Bradley; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
- Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] September interim meeting
- Brad:
- Thanks for the follow up.
- I am confident that if we can agree on crisp, clear objectives for 10
Gbps reach and media supported in September that we can get our PAR
approved and move into Task Force mode, which is where the real work
begins.
- Bruce
- At 06:35 PM 7/24/2003 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
- Study Group Members,
- Just to let others that were not at the meeting know the outcome of
the 802.3 Working Group meeting, the Study Group will have to complete
its PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives in November. This gives the
Study Group the task of completing the PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives in
4 months. This will make our September Interim meeting extremely
important. We will need to complete the effort as much as possible
to pre-submit to the 802.3 Working Group prior to the November
Plenary. November will permit us the ability to modify the PAR, 5
Criteria and Objectives prior to asking 802.3 to put the PAR on the
NesCom agenda. The September Interim meeting will focus on the
completion of our PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives.
- Thanks,
- Brad
- Chair, 10GBASE-T Study Group
- Bruce Tolley
- Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
- Gigabit Systems Business Unit
- Cisco Systems
- 170 West Tasman Drive
- MS SJ B2
- San Jose, CA 95134-1706
- internet: btolley@cisco.com
- ip phone: 408-526-4534
- "Don't put your hiking boots in the oven unless you plan on
eating them."
- Colin Fletcher, The Complete Walker
Nariman Yousefi
Vice President Networking Engineering
PH (949) 585 5450
FAX (949) 453 1848
e-mail : Yousefi@Broadcom.com
Bruce Tolley
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
MS SJ B2
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
internet: btolley@cisco.com
ip phone: 408-526-4534
"Don't put your hiking boots in the oven unless you plan on eating
them."
Colin Fletcher, The Complete Walker
Bruce Tolley
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
MS SJ B2
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
internet: btolley@cisco.com
ip phone: 408-526-4534
"Don't put your hiking boots in the oven unless you plan on
eating them."
Colin Fletcher, The Complete Walker