RE: AW: AW: 1550nm Serial PMD Question
All,
I think it is fair to assume that 40 G is outside the scope of our current
project.
Also, for those of you who are so hot to get started on the next speed,
might I suggest that proof of concept of the current speed is a great first
step. Perhaps it would be good to have some quality engineering rather than
marketing right now. :-)
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:32 PM
> Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: AW: AW: 1550nm Serial PMD Question
>
>
>
> Rich,
>
> History has shown that 802.3 only moves in order of magnitude steps.
> However, as P802.3ae is addressing metro applications to 40km with
> multiple solutions (LAN PHY and WAN PHY), the link
> aggregation standard
> is applicable to 10GE and a competitive solution, OC-768
> exists, I would
> not be surprised to see a 40GE effort spring up in the near future. It
> may not require any 802.3 standards activity since all the necessary
> standards and technology would already be in place.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> --
>
> "Booth, Bradley" wrote:
> >
> > Currently there has not been a call for interest (CFI) for
> 40GbE, so there
> > is no one working on it. Roy's reference is to OC-768
> which does not apply
> > to this standardization effort.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Brad
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rich_Hernandez@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Rich_Hernandez@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 5:56 PM
> > To: rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; krahn@xxxxxxxxxx;
> stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx;
> > marshall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: AW: AW: 1550nm Serial PMD Question
> >
> > Roy, you mentioned 40G. Is there any information on plans for a 40GE
> > standard? Is there a working group looking at 40GE?
> >
> > Hendrich (Rich) Hernandez
> > Dell High Volume Systems- SNAC
> > Bldg. RR5 / MS 8516
> > Tel: (512) 723-1957
> > Fax: (512) 723-1947
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:57 PM
> > To: Rahn, Juergen (Juergen); stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; 'Marshall
> > Eisenberg'
> > Subject: Re: AW: AW: 1550nm Serial PMD Question
> >
> > Rahn,
> >
> > The jitter specification has to do with multiplexing one
> signal payload,
> > along with other signal payloads into higher bandwidth payload
> > systems. You are right, clock tolerance has very little to
> do with optical
> > multiplexing and should not be an issue in a native DWDM service
> > environment.
> >
> > I have yet to see an explanation as to why a 100 PPM clock
> recovery system
> > is more expensive than a 20 PPM clock recovery system. If
> you use the
> > argument set by the legacy SONET standards body, the
> receivers for 10GbE
> > would be less expensive if the clock were specified at 20
> PPM. I have yet
> > to hear from any of the component vendors to support that
> argument. All of
> > the component vendors seem to believe that the SONET/SDH version is
> > slightly higher in cost.
> >
> > As for optical parameters, I have yet to see anyone provide a BER
> > specification at the pure optical level. All of the
> SONET/SDH overhead
> > bytes that are really required to provide performance
> monitoring at the
> > electrical signal level of the optical channel are included
> in 10GbE. What
> > is not included are the things that have historically created
> > inter-operability issues between vendors. As for finding
> transponders that
> > could support the specification, I sure that if you talk to
> someone that
> > has been around SONET a long time, that finding reliable optical
> > transponders for the early OC192 systems was an issue. As
> many of the
> > people that wrote the specification were transponder
> engineers, I have more
> > faith in their work than I do in what a legacy SONET/SDH
> that wants to sell
> > OC768 transmission gear has to say.
> >
> > 10GbE is a stand alone optical protocol. The 10GbE WAN PHY
> will easily
> > support transduction from the IEEE optical specification to the more
> > expensive ITU specification. It will also support the
> re-insertion of the
> > vendor specific overhead bytes in that process. It does
> not easily support
> > multiplexing up to OC768 or any other 40G signaling system.
> >
> > Of course, with 40G you have savings of only a 2 to 1 or 4 to 1 in
> > bandwidth to equipment cost over standard SONET/SDH 10G
> systems. You also
> > have the issue of being able to support only half the number of 40G
> > wavelengths compared with current 10G technology which
> gives you only twice
> > the bandwidth per fiber. You also have the shorter optical amplifier
> > distances with 40G, which adds to the implementation costs.
> It may be that
> > 40G and the high end optical systems may have a much higher
> deployment
> > costs per bandwidth than 10G.
> >
> > Time will tell about the actual cost of deployment and support.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> >
> > At 01:04 PM 5/7/01 +0200, Rahn, Juergen (Juergen) wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >The jitter has nothing to do with optical muxing. You can
> always use a bad
> > >electrical signal in WDM environment, however to really
> doing some more
> > than
> > >only point to point links the Ethernet (the "electrical"
> part as jitter and
> > >clock tolerance) have also take into account that you are
> may need to
> > >regenerate and for this this spec is not suited. Here it
> should be noted
> > >that for our experience the CDR modules for Ethernet clock
> tolerance of
> > >+/-100ppm are currently not less expensive but generate
> higher cost than
> > the
> > >SONET specified version. So in this respect the Ethernet is of more
> > >expensive nature and I do not understand your point for
> the "low cost
> > >Ethernet".
> > >The second aspect are the optical parameters. The Ethernet
> is currently
> > >specified in a way that no easy verification if an receive
> signal is in
> > spec
> > >is possible. Something like this is not in line with the
> goal for ensuring
> > >interworking and low operation cost and in the past the
> operators have
> > >insisted on simple operation as operation cost is the main
> part of their
> > >expenses. So in this respect the 10GE interface spec as
> currently written
> > >will be a cost driver. In addition there is one small issue with
> > >availability of components as if you look around the
> market you find no
> > >single transponder supporting the specs as written in the
> current draft (At
> > >least I searched around and did not find a single unit
> fulfilling that
> > >parameter set). There are of course a lot of marketing
> slides around in the
> > >world but on verifiable technical details there is a big
> gap . (May be
> > >fulfilling more demanding specs will lower cost but
> normally it is just the
> > >other way around.) This is valid already for the current spec.
> > >For WDM interworking something in addition is needed. You
> where mentioning
> > >the ITU grid. So at least what you need is a transmitter
> wavelength as
> > >specified in the
> > >If you want to connect the interface as currently specked
> connected to a
> > >WDM system you are limited to the power budget Including
> mux and demux as
> > >given by the interface. In this case you have to note
> that there will be a
> > >penalty in addition due to Xtalk at the de- mux. This
> penalty however is
> > >difficult to be considered as the power specifications in
> 10 GE are not
> > >precisely given. This situation will be worse in case of
> optical amplifiers
> > >which are normally required and used in WDM. In case of
> this the optical
> > >specs have to be amended anyway as the current
> specification will lead to
> > >unknown optical performance when using optical
> amplification. If an optical
> > >spec that would allow WDM interworking would be developed
> it will not be
> > >different from a similar SDH spec in this respect.
> > >It should be noted that the only transversal compatible WDM spec is
> > >currently in G.959.1 while everything else on WDM is longitudinal
> > >compatible. So if you want to have transversal compatible
> optical WDM
> > >interface specifications you should use this G.959.1 and
> you are done. If
> > >you will do something different it is just different, not
> standard, but
> > not
> > >automatically cheaper.
> > >Regards Juergen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > Von: Roy Bynum[SMTP:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Mai 2001 01:09
> > > > An: Rahn, Juergen (Juergen);
> stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; 'Marshall
> > > > Eisenberg'
> > > > Betreff: Re: AW: 1550nm Serial PMD Question
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rahn,
> > > >
> > > > It might be noted that the jitter specification that
> the ITU is applying
> > > > is
> > > > to allow all signals to be multiplexed at the
> electrical level, not just
> > > > the optical level. No one in ITU has considered an "optical
> > multiplexing
> > > > only" jitter specification. Using the "Class B" regenerator
> > specification
> > > >
> > > > with a plezio-isosynchronous timing instead of a full
> isosynchronous and
> > a
> > > >
> > > > relaxed timing specification would allow non-TDM
> multiplexed optical
> > > > services and non-"digital wrapper" DWDM wavelength
> services. The larger
> > > > vendors are attempting to maintain their dominance and
> high margins for
> > > > transmission equipment. I expect that ITU is very
> upset about 802.3ae
> > > > being a non-electrical multiplexable optical channel.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Roy Bynum
> > > >
> > > > At 09:37 AM 5/4/01 +0200, Rahn, Juergen (Juergen) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Hi,
> > > > >The spec is indeed not in line to the "ITU Grid".
> However it should be
> > > > >noted that beside this small pree condition of
> supporting particular
> > > > >wavelength there are a lot further specs required that
> are not at all
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > >Ethernet document. This means this interface in the
> current spec is not
> > > > >suited for direct WDM also. For WDM you would in this
> case require a
> > real
> > > > >SDH/SONET interface. In this respect it should also be
> noted that one
> > > > reason
> > > > >(beside the optical parameters that do not support effective
> > > > transmission)
> > > > >is the way the jitter is specified as this prevents
> the cascadability
> > of
> > > > 3 R
> > > > >regens which are needed in WDM networks of larger dimensions.
> > > > >Regards Juergen Rahn
> > > > >
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Von: Marshall Eisenberg[SMTP:marshall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2001 16:39
> > > > > > An: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Betreff: 1550nm Serial PMD Question
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All,
> > > > > > A while back there were rumors that the 1550nm
> Serial PMD would be
> > ITU
> > > > > > Grid
> > > > > > Spec compliant, making it DWDM 'ready' I've
> downloaded draft D3.0
> > > > and
> > > > > > cannot find any references or further notations.
> Can anyone shed
> > any
> > > > > > light
> > > > > > on this or point out the relevant section in the draft?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marshall Eisenberg
> > > > > > Director of product marketing
> > > > > > Foundry Networks Inc.
> > > > > > 2100 Gold Street
> > > > > > P.O. Box 649100
> > > > > > San Jose, CA 95164-9100
> > > > > > (408) 586-1754 direct
> > > > > > (408) 586-1900 fax
> > > > > > (408) 398-0014 mobile
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Taborek Sr. Intel Corporation
> XAUI Sherpa Intel Communications Group
> 3101 Jay Street, Suite 110 Optical Products Group
> Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara Design Center
> 408-496-3423 JAY1-101
> Cell: 408-832-3957 mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
> Fax: 408-486-9783 http://www.intel.com
>
>