Hi Chris, I support this motion to split 800G-10km objective into two objectives as your described: 800G-LR4 and 800G-LR1. Both IMDD and Coherent camps have already spent significant efforts and have strong conviction with their technical merit, use cases and benefit to their intended customers. The best path forward at this point is to allow both options to move forward. Thanks. Rang-Chen (Ryan) Yu, Ph. D. SiFotonics Technologies 690 Saratoga Ave, 1st Floor, San Jose, CA 95129 Cell: 408-3078078 Email: rangchen.yu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: Jeffery Maki <00000d5963b8071f-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Jeffery Maki <jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 at 5:07 PM
To: <STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_B400G] 10km over duplex SMF objective Chris, I support the proposal. I would remind at this point that the entire P802.3dj task force is still responsible for meeting these two objectives. Jeffery Maki From: Chris Cole <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 4:41 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_B400G] 10km over duplex SMF objective [External Email. Be cautious of content]
During last week's meeting, there were a number of excellent presentations which gave us a clearer picture of the 10km over duplex SMF objective.
Williams showed that the IMDD LR4 solution can result in the lowest cost if it leverages high volume DR4 and FR4. (Spoiler alert: DR4 and FR4 PHYs will support LR4.) He further showed that the Coherent LR1 solution can have an unallocated link budget which can be used to support greater reach. We know that LR1 can easily have an even greater unallocated link budget which can be used for high-loss short-reach intra-datacenter applications like optical switching. This suggests that in the Task Force there are multiple important constituencies which will not be well served by one solution.
Other presentations showed that there is important technical work that needs to be done and decisions that need to be made. An IMDD example is the FWM penalty. A Coherent example is O-band vs. C-band. The IMDD and Coherent technical issues and decisions are distinct, and their investigations are decoupled. After discussing this and process issues with our distinguished Chair, John D’Ambrosia, we would like to propose to the Task Force that we replace the following objective:
Define a physical layer specification that supports 800 Gb/s operation: · over a single SMF in each direction with lengths up to at least 10 km,
Define a physical layer specification that supports 800 Gb/s operation: · over 1 wavelength over a single SMF in each direction with lengths up to at least 10 km, · over 4 wavelengths over a single SMF in each direction with lengths up to at least 10 km.
These two objectives are distinctly different, and examples can be found in prior projects, as well in 802.3dj itself, which has objectives targeting 800 GbE 2km operation over either 4 parallel fibers or 4 wavelengths. We would like to get your feedback on this approach, and incorporate received comments into a proposal to be made during the March Plenary meeting.
Thank you
Chris
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1
|