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

Re: [802.3_NGECDC] Input Requested for Beyond 400 GbE CFI



I can see 1x200G as something useful for server to TOR connections in the future and might be easy to add to the Ethernet family.  I agree with you on the 2x200G.   Also, bear in mind the limited distances that 200G lane can cover and the use cases.  We see it mostly in the intra-DC applications.
--
Cedric F. Lam
Cell: +1 (949) 351-2766


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:05 AM John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All,

I received a question after this week’s NEA meeting that I would like to get some feedback on from others.

 

The question was –

If 200 Gb/s per lane signaling were developed could efforts to define 200 GbE based on 1x200 Gb/s and 400 GbE based on 2x200 Gb/s be addressed.

 

I think it is actually a good question and important for me in developing the CFI Consensus deck and defining the SG chartering motion.  As shown by the slide below - 200 Gb/s signaling is applicable to 200 and 400 GbE. 400 Gb/s serial signaling might also be applicable to 400 GbE. 

 

My own personal opinion is that the whole 1x / 2x lanes would then need to be examined on a PHY basis – as we have seen some instances where 2x lanes don’t see market adoption.

 

 

This also raises the question as to whether the study group would define more than one PAR.  Based on the above text – I think there is an opportunity for that or another project that spins out efforts based on consideration of schedule.

 

So I would appreciate some feedback from individuals as it impacts the consensus deck

 

Thanks in advance.

 

John


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGECDC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGECDC&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGECDC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGECDC&A=1