Bob,
I was responsible for
providing that 330K gate, 4Watt estimate for 1000BASE-T, using 0.35u CMOS
technology. The power consumption was broken into 3W for the digital (pretty
good, in retrospect, for first silicon) and 1W for the analog (way off, for
first silicon).
At that time, many experts in
the analog community assured me that 0.35u CMOS was the golden process for
analog – it was going to be downhill in terms of silicon area/power
consumption from that point on. The record shows that we have been debunking
that as myth in every process generation since 0.35u.
During the 1000BASE-T PAR
discussions, there was also a heated debate about restricting ourselves to
500BASE-T for the “installed base”. It was claimed that 1000BASE-T
silicon would be more complex than an Intel 486 microprocessor and that there
was no way the industry can build cost-effective Ethernet PHY solutions for
1000BASE-T.
Best Regards,
Sailesh Rao
Intel Corporation
1230 Campus Drive West
Morganville, NJ 07751.
sailesh.rao@intel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:01
PM
To: stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Technical
feasibility: power
I don't remember anyone
demanding nor anyone promising that 1000BASE-T would be deliverded at 1 Watt at
any stage in developing the standard. I know of multiple initial
implementations of 1000BASE-T with higher power consumption. For me
personally, the comparison point isn't an arbitrary watt number, but is
relative to the power consumption of 10 GbE optics modules.
I found no mention of
power consumption in the 802.3z critters or objectives, nor in the 802.3ab
critters or objectives I sampled.
· Est. Gate Count/Power Consumption: 330K/4W
FYI, the 802.3ab
objectives listed in that presentation were
· Comply with
specifications for GMII of 802.3z.
· Provide line
transmission which supports full and half duplex
operation.
· Provide FCC Class
A/CISPR or better operation
· Support operation
over 100 meters of Category 5 balanced
cabling
· Achieve bit Error
Rate better than to 10 -10
· Support
Auto-Negotiation (Clause 28)
· Meet susceptibility
requirements
· Support the
objectives of 802.3z of Nov. 13, 1996
--Bob Grow
-----Original
Message-----
From: xichen@marvell.com
[mailto:xichen@marvell.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:01
PM
To: Booth, Bradley
Cc: stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] Technical
feasibility: power
I believe that the power number would be a big factor
in the economic feasibility. If we are talking about a 1 Watt part, then
it is not a big deal, but if a much higher number turns out, everyone might
give a second thought on whether it is even worth to implement it.
Just
my thought,
Xiaopeng
|
|
"Booth, Bradley"
<bradley.booth@intel.com>
07/31/2003 02:45 PM
|
To: <xichen@marvell.com>,
<stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T]
Technical feasibility: power
|
I was trying to recall if 802.3 used and specific
power numbers in the GbE and 10GbE objectives or 5 criteria. Considering
I don't have web access right now, I'm just going by memory. I believe
802.3 did not dictate power requirements, but did use power estimations in
selection of the PHY to put into the draft. This is just a Study Group,
so it may only be required that to state that due consideration will be given
to the power requirements.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Brad
-----------------
Sent from my BlackBerry.
-----Original Message-----
From: xichen@marvell.com <xichen@marvell.com>
To: stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org <stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org>
Sent: Thu Jul 31 13:52:04 2003
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Technical feasibility: power
Burce,
That is what I called painful lessons. The customers always want parts
that have high performance margin and low power. I believe that has
become the rule for our designers unless you really want something that can
also fry eggs. In order to give a reasonable estimation of the power
comsuption, we should defintely take into account all possible technology and
design tricks that we know and we can use in 5 years. Of course, we
cannot predict any magic stuff that can save the world will come out soon, but
we can wait.
A well-estimated number will save a lot words.
Xiaopeng
Bruce Tolley
<btolley@cisco.com>
07/31/2003 12:56 PM
To: xichen@marvell.com,
Bruce Tolley <btolley@cisco.com>
cc:
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T]
Technical feasibility: power
Xiaopeng
Thanks for the response
The first 1000BASE-T parts were much more than a few watts. Also the power
numbers on the roadmaps of the various vendors started dropping as soon one of
the competitors achieved lower power numbers. All the sudden, the impossible
became possible.
And yes we need data to be presented in September.
Bruce
At 11:10 AM 7/31/2003 -0700, xichen@marvell.com wrote:
Hi,
I believe that everyone of us has painfully learned a lot from the history of
1000BASE-T. We have observed the power of a single 1000BASE-T dropped
from a few watts to sub-watt level today. And we can pretty confidently
assess the impact of the technology that we are gonna use in 5 years and we
definitely should take that into account NOW.
Many circuit design experts will tell you that the power of digital circuit
part can be scaled down while the semiconductor technology got significant
improvement in the following years (how about using 65nm when 10GB-T reach the
market), but the analog circuit part won't get too much benefit from that and
its performance (for example, the ADC resolution) will be limited by some
fundamental physical rule. Due to the complexity increase of the DSP part
and the analog part, even using 65nm technology for digital circuit and using
SiGe technology for analog circuit, to reach 100m on CAT-7, the estimated power
of the transceiver (assume it is practically feasible) will be a number that
can surprise you. I believe more and more data will be given in the
following meeting to show you the reality.
Xiaopeng
Bruce Tolley <btolley@cisco.com>
Sent by: owner-stds-802-3-10gbt@majordomo.ieee.org
07/31/2003 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
cc:
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>
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> 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