| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Brad, There has been no suggestion that the break-out objective be an absolute requirement. All have language like “as appropriate” or “if appropriate”. I personally think break-out capability makes a lot of sense for solutions aimed at connectivity within data centers. In contrast, so far I have not seen arguments supporting break-out functionality in the longer-reach applications. Paul From: Brad Booth [mailto:bbooth@xxxxxxxx] Jonathan, Thank you for the summation of my concern. The selection of a PHY will be based on its ability to meet the objectives. For example, if there are two PHY/PMD proposals where #1 provides a significant cost and implementation benefit but #2 provides breakout capability, then this objective could be used to defeat #1 in favor of #2. Maybe the question the study group needs to answer is: Is breakout a critical requirement for 400G that we wish to exclude proposals that do not support it? Thanks, Brad ‘Provide support if appropriate for breakout functionality to 40G and / or 100G’ To avoid locking out an otherwise compelling technology option…. From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:John_DAmbrosia@xxxxxxxx] All, Per our call last week, what are the thoughts on the wording of this as a proposed objective – Provide appropriate support for breakout functionality to 40G and / or 100G There was some concern about potential impact or unintended consequences that people wanted to see this wording to discuss further. Regards, John |