Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_B400G] [EXT] Re: [802.3_B400G] [802.3_B400G_LOGIC] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track ad hoc agenda 8/15/23

Hi Mike

I was thinking of CWDM when I mentioned few ps/nm. For DR it's a fraction of a ps/nm. 

As you point out the loss in these applications is driven by connector loss, so we would need presentations explaining the topologies. The loss budget is what gives us plug and play, for example accomodating a connection that is not perfectly cleaned. Anything below 2dB is pushing the envelope for a high volume interface. 

At this point, a technical case has not been made that 100m has appreciable advantage over 500m. To move forward with 100m or any other new PMD proposal, substantive data is required to establish technical feasibility and distinct identity.

Chris

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 9:03 AM Mike Dudek <mdudek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I agree that it is not obvious that a few ps/nm of CD is what drives us to require inner FEC for 500m.    Maxim -   Thank you for reminding us of the referenced presentation which also suggested reducing the loss for the shorter distance to maybe 1.5dB (less and probably better connectors).   As a mode for a single PMD that is guaranteed to work over the full 500m with 3dB loss this could be a very interesting option to save power in a data center.    

 

From: Chris Cole <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 8:18 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXT] Re: [802.3_B400G] [802.3_B400G_LOGIC] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track ad hoc agenda 8/15/23

 

External Email

Hi Maxim,

 

200G 100m SMF PHY not requiring an inner FEC is an interesting hypothesis. If 500m does not work, then 100m is logical reach to look at. It's not obvious that a few ps/nm of CD is what drives us to require inner FEC for 500m, but this and other hypotheses now need to be proved or disproved through measurements. There are lots of possible experimental outcomes for not requiring inner FEC; 500m, 100m, or it's not possible. 

 

At this point, there is no need to do anything with respect to modifying how we meet existing objectives (ex. two modes) or adding new objectives until substantive measurements are presented. In parallel we can continue to investigate how to switch inner FEC on and off.

 

Chris

 

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 7:55 AM Maxim Kuschnerov <00001ce35f779191-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In response to Mike's email, which makes a lot of sense to me & the 100m notion - a proposal for 100m SMF based PHYs was brought up during the study group phase but not supported back then:
https://www.ieee802.org/3/B400G/public/21_03/stassar_b400g_01a_210315.pdf

But it might be an interesting discussion, given the newly found LPO angle for AI clusters at shorter reaches and the move to 200G AUI in the future.

Br
Maxim

-----Original Message-----
From: John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Donnerstag, 17. August 2023 16:30
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B400G] [EXT] Re: [802.3_B400G] [802.3_B400G_LOGIC] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track ad hoc agenda 8/15/23

All,

Mike has summed things up perfectly in his second paragraph below regarding the one versus two PHY question.  The only thing I can add to this is that we raised the question of whether an optimized receiver was desired in the presentation.  The conversation went everywhere during the Q&A, and I don’t think we ever really resolved that question.  If we develop different receivers with no mandatory inter-operable mode we have an issue.



And as I had noted, based on the conversations I have had, it appears that people have been interpreting the relevant presentations and even motions differently.



John



From: Mike Dudek <mdudek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:28 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B400G] [EXT] Re: [802.3_B400G] [802.3_B400G_LOGIC] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track ad hoc agenda 8/15/23



To me what makes it one phy versus two phys is the following.



All compliant devices must be inter-operable and meet the defined objective
in their default mode.      Having additional (optional or required) defined
modes (e.g. FEC in 10GBASE-KR) or bypass inner FEC MODE for 200GBASE-DR does not make it two phys provided there is the mandatory inter-operable mode
that is the default and meets the objective.   (Whether operation at other
than the default is changed via auto-negotiation or an engineered solution
doesn’t in my opinion change whether it is one phy.).       



Sticking with the idea of the two modes but one Phy we could decide that in bypass mode the guaranteed link budget and reach is less (i.e. channel is better as Chris and Tom have suggested) and then , if my suggestion of auto-negotiation based on achieved error rate is used, the statistics of Tx’s and Rx’s being better than worst case will actually mean the majority
of links can operate in the Bypass mode at the defined objective.   (This
would only guarantee the lower power and latency with the better channel but could be significant statistical help for data center power dissipation
and latency).    A 2dB link budget reduction would I think compensate for
much of the difference in required BER with the FEC bypassed.    It could be
achieved by relaxing the TDEC max and TDECQ max for the KP4 only Probability
by 2dB and reducing the min OMA-TDECQ/TDEC by 2dB.       A reduction in
length to 100m might also be worthwhile and at that length I don’t see a need to have a TDECQ spec TDEC should be fine by itself.  Note that if people are worried about latency they shouldn’t be having >100m lengths of fiber as this is approx 500ns latency which is way more latency than the inner FEC). 



From: Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 10:14 AM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [802.3_B400G] [802.3_B400G_LOGIC] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track ad hoc agenda 8/15/23



External Email

  _____ 

John



If I drive the same car at two different speeds, that doesn't make it two cars.



Chris



  _____ 

From: John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx> >
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 10:09 AM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject:  Re: [802.3_B400G] [802.3_B400G_LOGIC] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track ad hoc agenda 8/15/23



All

I will be discussing this topic further with Mr. Law shortly. 



Despite assertions it is the same device - the current tx proposal is not the same device running at lower rates as there were other changes to the tx / tx proposed.



Your patience is appreciated



Regards



John



Sent from my iPhone



On Aug 16, 2023, at 12:49 PM, Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:



Hi Ali,



If inner FEC is specified for plug and play DR and FR, the specifications for the no inner FEC mode falls out of it. It's the same implementation operating at the lower rate. This leads to reduced performance, for example lower power budget. Whether that's useful is a separate question.



Given the confidence by TF participants in no inner FEC feasibility, we should revisit writing a spec. for only this case. This is especially true for DR.


One option is to specify DR only with end-to-end FEC, and FR and LR are with inner FEC, again subject to demonstrating feasibility.



Chris



  _____ 

From: Ali Ghiasi <aghiasi@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:aghiasi@xxxxxxxxx> >
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 9:03 AM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >

Subject  Re: [802.3_B400G] [802.3_B400G_LOGIC] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track ad hoc agenda 8/15/23



Hello Chris,



One of the key reason for success of IEEE 802.3 standards as said is the Five Criteria (CSD) and technical feasibility, on the DJ website under Technical Feasibility we have:



https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/22/ec-22-0256-00-ACSD-p802-3dj.pdf
[mentor.ieee.org]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/22/ec-22-0256
-00-ACSD-p802-3dj.pdf__;!!BEJPKrpf!79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFtogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuL
JnTu7-45NyJkjSd-XUbIKVx_motA5KeXzyo51OA$>

At a minimum, address the following items to demonstrate technical
feasibility:

a) Demonstrated system feasibility.

b) Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc.

c) Confidence in reliability.

I am sure at some point in time 200 Gb/s/lane optics will evolve sufficiently where one with confidence and reliable operate such link with
just KP4 FEC.   

If for some reason the future TX technology (2nd Gen Sipho/TFLN ??) are ready for deployment in 12-18 months then there is no reason to define PMDs with inner FEC!



We should not hack defining future optics PMDs based on 1st Gen 200G TX optics!



Thanks,

Ali Ghiasi
Ghiasi Quantum LLC







On Aug 15, 2023, at 1:52 PM, Chris Cole <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:



During today's Ad Hoc call, John D'Ambrosia's and David Law's presentation [ieee802.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ieee802.org/3/dj/public/adhoc/optics
/0823_OPTX/dambrosia_3dj_optx_01a_230815.pdf__;!!BEJPKrpf!79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFt
ogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuLJnTu7-45NyJkjSd-XUbIKVx_motA5KeX8brtf0p$> very nicely illuminated the disconnect we have in the Task Force on standardizing FEC bypass.



One perspective is that we create new objectives for the same reach, with independent specs. at a lower rate and only end to end FEC. Part of the motivation is that a better TX modulator removes the need for inner FEC. If we adopt this approach, we will have two solutions to the same problem: 1) "bad" TX with inner FEC to make up for the badness, 2) "great" TX without the need for inner FEC. Unfortunately, we have 802.3 Five Criteria to contend with. Distinct Identity clearly states there will be one solution to one problem. If DI doesn't apply here, then we might as well discard it, and going forward only have 802.3 Four Criteria.



FEC bypass should be a lower performance operating mode for the same HW.
This is the basis on which I supported moving forward with it. We have to add a full set of specifications for this mode. This is why the general approach we take for ER is good precedent. The Plug-and-play spec column is at the higher rate with inner FEC. The Engineered spec column is at the lower rate with inner FEC bypassed. An end user can then look at the spec, and for example conclude that for their shorter reach ML clusters, the FEC bypassed mode works just fine. However, the specifications lead to one component type. The industry does not need component type proliferation driven by IEEE. That leads to market fragmentation.



Alternatively, if we really believe that "good" TX technology is available, let's not bother having an inner FEC. Let's forget writing a spec for "bad'
TX and write one spec. for end-to-end FEC only.



Either way, we do not need new objectives. We have single 500m and 2km objectives, each with two modes (Plug-and-play and Engineered) with different levels of performance and operating parameters like rate, or just one Plug-and-play mode without inner FEC.



Chris



On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:15 AM Mark Nowell (mnowell) <00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

Hi Everyone,



All files for tomorrow’s joint optics/logic ad hoc meeting are posted <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ieee802.org/3/dj/public/adhoc/optics
/0823_OPTX/index.html__;!!BEJPKrpf!79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFtogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuL
JnTu7-45NyJkjSd-XUbIKVx_motA5KeX0Rpavzy$> here [ieee802.org].



Call in details are available
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ieee802.org/3/calendar.html__;!!BEJP
Krpf!79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFtogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuLJnTu7-45NyJkjSd-XUbIKVx_motA5K
eX04uPa0x$> here [ieee802.org].



The technical presentations in the agenda are:

*       " FEC Bypass: Procedural Considerations " presented by John
D’Ambrosia, Futurewei, US Subsidiary of Huawei
*       " Performance Evaluation of Inner FEC Synchronization Methods "
presented by Xiang He, Huawei
*       " Specifying BER in PMD clauses " presented by Adee Ran, Cisco
*       " DGDmax specification for 10km Ethernet" presented by Maxim
Kuschnerov, Huawei



We may be holding a straw poll after the first presentation to gather directional feedback for Task Force leadership.



I want to remind all teleconference meeting participants to review the following documents prior to participation in an IEEE 802.3 meeting
teleconference:

*       IEEE SA patent policy
*       IEEE SA Copyright Policy
*       IEEE SA Participation Policy



All of these policies may be found at http://ieee802.org/3/policies.html
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/ieee802.org/3/policies.html__;!!BEJPKrpf!
79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFtogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuLJnTu7-45NyJkjSd-XUbIKVx_motA5KeXzts
ZmNv$>  [ieee802.org]



Thanks,



Mark N

IEEE P802.3dj optics track leader

And 

Mark G

IEEE P802.3dj architecture and logic track leader





From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) <
<mailto:00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:36 PM
To:  <mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G-LOGIC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
STDS-802-3-B400G-LOGIC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx < <mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G-LOGIC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
STDS-802-3-B400G-LOGIC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_B400G_LOGIC] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track June ad hoc meetings announcement

Reminder to everyone about next Tuesday’s IEEE P802.3dj  joint logic and optics track ad hoc meetings.



There are deadlines this week for agenda requests (Wednesday) and presentation submission (Friday).



Regards,
Mark



From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) < <mailto:mnowell@xxxxxxxxx> mnowell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:47 AM
To:  <mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
STDS-802-3-B400G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx < <mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
STDS-802-3-B400G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G-LOGIC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
STDS-802-3-B400G-LOGIC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx < <mailto:STDS-802-3-B400G-LOGIC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
STDS-802-3-B400G-LOGIC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track June ad hoc meetings announcement

This email serves to announce the next IEEE P802.3dj  joint  logic and optics track ad hoc meetings. 



Meeting dates, times and deadlines:                         




Meeting

Agenda request deadline (5pm PT)

Contribution submission deadline (5pm PT)


Tues Aug 15th,  7am to 10am PT

Wed Aug 9th

Fri Aug 11th


Tues Aug 29th, 7am to 10am PT

Wed Aug 23rd

Fri Aug 25th





The call details will be available on the TF website at https://www.ieee802.org/3/dj/public/adhoc/optics/index.html
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ieee802.org/3/dj/public/adhoc/optics
/index.html__;!!BEJPKrpf!79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFtogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuLJnTu7-45Ny
JkjSd-XUbIKVx_motA5KeX80tk28R$>  [ieee802.org] and can be found on the IEEE call and meeting calendar at https://www.ieee802.org/3/calendar.html
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ieee802.org/3/calendar.html__;!!BEJP
Krpf!79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFtogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuLJnTu7-45NyJkjSd-XUbIKVx_motA5K
eX04uPa0x$>  [ieee802.org]



Coming out of the May plenary meeting, we identified a number of areas where more information is needed or more consensus is needed.  The purpose of these ad hoc meetings is allow discussion and contributions on any of these topics.  We are holding it joint between the optics and logic teams as a number of these topics relate across both areas.



The goal will be to enable contributors to better refine proposals or provide information relevant to future decisions ahead of the July Plenary meeting.  With this being an ad hoc meeting, no decisions can be made but informative straw polls are possible.



At this point, we anticipate topics to potentially include:

*        Inner FEC padding and synchronization

*        FEC bypass proposal

*        Updates on IMDD optical baseline proposals (nothing adopted yet)

*        Updates on coherent optical baseline proposals (nothing adopted
yet here too)

But this is not a complete list of potential topics.





If anyone, does wish to make a short presentation in line with above please make a request by the dates noted above. Please email myself, Mark Gustlin (and John D'Ambrosia, please) the following information:

*       Name of presenter
*       Affiliation of presenter
*       Title of presentation
*       Length of time requested (this should include time for questions and
answers – presentation time, excluding Q&A, will be at the discretion of the chair, and should be assumed to be limited to 30 min)
*       Brief description of topic



The presenter shall e-mail a PDF, soft-copy version of the presentation to me (and John D'Ambrosia, please) in advance of the meeting per above dates..
All individuals submitting presentations should review the Procedures for Presenters Page: http://www.ieee802.org/3/df/public/presentproc.html
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.ieee802.org/3/df/public/presentproc.h
tml__;!!BEJPKrpf!79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFtogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuLJnTu7-45NyJkjSd-XU
bIKVx_motA5KeX1hpP5_p$>  [ieee802.org]



Please adhere to the Presentation Style Guidelines.  Also, to support the web site search tool used by the IEEE P802.3 web site the 'Document Information' fields of the PDF file must be completed as follows:

*       Title: Title of presentation
*       Author: Name(s) of author(s)
*       Subject: IEEE P802.3dj Task Force



I want to remind all teleconference meeting participants to review the following documents prior to participation in an IEEE 802.3 meeting
teleconference:

*       IEEE SA patent policy
*       IEEE SA Copyright Policy
*       IEEE SA Participation Policy



All of these policies may be found at http://ieee802.org/3/policies.html
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/ieee802.org/3/policies.html__;!!BEJPKrpf!
79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFtogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuLJnTu7-45NyJkjSd-XUbIKVx_motA5KeXzts
ZmNv$>  [ieee802.org]



Thanks,



Mark N

IEEE P802.3dj optics track leader

And 

Mark G

IEEE P802.3dj architecture and logic track leader

  _____ 

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
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS
-802-3-B400G&A=1__;!!BEJPKrpf!79H8l9Rm0bduV7BbFtogX_UVuDPbVcaFfo49NSUuLJnTu7
-45NyJkjSd-XUbIKVx_motA5KeX7oE3-fW$> &A=1 [listserv.ieee.org]



  _____ 

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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.ieee.org_cgi-
2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DSTDS-2D802-2D3-2DB400G-26A-3D1&d=DwQGaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOy
Paz7xtfQ&r=ByY6oUxf220Ddd-SyaVxPhhBWeswnvdzx7OqPn6oNGM&m=T2qcCwyTkRrlPwAd9BP
5sMwkjwsWrCHpdOocSOcExWmMJCQxd7f3-e9Pmk8cFmdx&s=lOBQAcGxibbmWN3oapakrlqhEDdP
OIhGH7ys4jGiPMw&e=> &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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.ieee.org_cgi-
2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DSTDS-2D802-2D3-2DB400G-26A-3D1&d=DwQGaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOy
Paz7xtfQ&r=ByY6oUxf220Ddd-SyaVxPhhBWeswnvdzx7OqPn6oNGM&m=T2qcCwyTkRrlPwAd9BP
5sMwkjwsWrCHpdOocSOcExWmMJCQxd7f3-e9Pmk8cFmdx&s=lOBQAcGxibbmWN3oapakrlqhEDdP
OIhGH7ys4jGiPMw&e=> &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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.ieee.org_cgi-
2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DSTDS-2D802-2D3-2DB400G-26A-3D1&d=DwQGaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOy
Paz7xtfQ&r=ByY6oUxf220Ddd-SyaVxPhhBWeswnvdzx7OqPn6oNGM&m=T2qcCwyTkRrlPwAd9BP
5sMwkjwsWrCHpdOocSOcExWmMJCQxd7f3-e9Pmk8cFmdx&s=lOBQAcGxibbmWN3oapakrlqhEDdP
OIhGH7ys4jGiPMw&e=> &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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.ieee.org_cgi-
2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DSTDS-2D802-2D3-2DB400G-26A-3D1&d=DwQGaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOy
Paz7xtfQ&r=ByY6oUxf220Ddd-SyaVxPhhBWeswnvdzx7OqPn6oNGM&m=T2qcCwyTkRrlPwAd9BP
5sMwkjwsWrCHpdOocSOcExWmMJCQxd7f3-e9Pmk8cFmdx&s=lOBQAcGxibbmWN3oapakrlqhEDdP
OIhGH7ys4jGiPMw&e=> &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
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1> &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

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