Dear P802.3bs
Task Force Members,
I wanted to
explain why I am an author of competing proposals for the
2-km reach objective, namely, 4x100G-lambda (50GBAUD) PAM-4
and 8x50G-lambda (25GBAUD) PAM-4. I began with 4x100G-lambda
(50GBAUD) PAM-4 because it aligned with what I believe is
best from an architectural point of view, which I had
reviewed in my Norfolk presentation
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bs/public/14_05/maki_3bs_01a_0514.pdf.
I also considered in that presentation that technical
feasibility in concert with time-to-market considerations
might dictate something different than architectural
optimization.
Here are some
things I also know to be true:
1.
The market needs a durable (good
longevity) interoperable standard for 10 km reach. This
reach is where the market demands zero issues for
interconnecting systems from different system vendors and
implicitly module vendors.
2.
The market will ask for a reduced
performance, 2 km reach, version and thus more importantly a
reduced cost option that preserves interoperation with (1)
up to 2 km.
3.
IEEE 802.3 standardization enabling
higher-density solutions and/or lower cost solutions for
2-km applications will not stop (1) and (2) from continuing
to be demanded and procured. Only a compelling new 10-km
standard would change things for (1) and (2).
Thus, at this
time, my priority has become
8x50G-lambda (25GBAUD)
PAM-4 for the 2-km reach proposal since it aligns with the
what I see as the winning 10-km reach proposal, which is
8x50G-lambda (25GBAUD) PAM-4.
Jeff
All,
The webpage has been updated with all files
I have received as of now.
Please see -
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bs/public/15_05/index.shtml.
We will start promptly at 8:30am tomorrow
(Monday) morning.
Regards,
John D’Ambrosia
Chair, IEEE P802.3bs 400GbE Task Force