Hi John,
You are exactly right, the question of when 100G I/O based optics will ship the 1st million units is also important, as is the related question of when 50G I/O based optics will ship the 1st million units. We know
that 25G I/O based optics shipped the 1st million units in 2017, i.e. 11 years after the CFI.
By understanding these milestones, it will tell us whether the objective is initial low volume transport and inter-datacenter links, or high volume intra-datacenter links. This doesn’t make a difference to the logic layer specification,
but it makes a huge difference to the physical layer specification and the associated objectives.
Chris
From: John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2020 3:49 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGECDC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXTERNAL]: Re: [802.3_NGECDC] Input Requested for Beyond 400 GbE CFI
Chris,
In the past the question you asked below has been used to justify the
next speed, not the justification for the speed in question itself. So I am trying to understand your question. It would seem the question you want to ask would be related to 100G, not 200G.
Just trying to understand what you are getting at to see if additional data is needed.
Thanks
John
From: Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 1:20 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGECDC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGECDC] Input Requested for Beyond 400 GbE CFI
Hi Cedric
When do you think the 1st million optical transceivers with 200G I/O will ship? It can be any configuration; Nx200G, Nx400G, 800G, etc.
Chris
From: Cedric Lam (林
峯) <000011675c2a7243-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:35 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGECDC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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
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