| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I would like to add a few more thoughts on individual slides: - Slide 10: I am not really sure how much power saving there can be in disabling wavelengths versus resulting implementation complexity. Consider that disabling wavelengths in downstream would be rather rare, given that there is always some data to be sent downstream to end customers. Trying to load balance and move all traffic across wavelengths to Lambda0 to be able to disable higher order Lambdas would require much more complexity and control of destination per frame than we have today within an 802.3 PHY. - On slide 12, “The cost of 50G and 100G optics will be roughly 2x and 4x of 25G optics” – I have been looking for actual data to demonstrate the relationship between number of channels and relative device cost and failed to find anything solid so far. I recall discussion in one of multi-lane 100G Task Forces indicating that the module cost increase is not really linear in the function of integrated channels, but I do not see actual materials on this topic. It might be worth to seek contributions from companies with optical integration experience to discuss maturity and also relative cost curves. - Slide 4: a lot of good points here. Marek From: frank effenberger [mailto:frank.effenberger@xxxxxxxxxx] Glen and all, I would caution against thinking that “wavelengths” are like a commodity. Unlike people, not all wavelengths are created equal, I’m afraid to say. Moreover, we don’t allocate individual wavelengths, but actually wavelength bands, with width of which has a huge effect on cost of components. This is what the presentations at the last meeting from Ed and I were getting at. The worst thing is that we are not starting from a clean slate – there is a lot of legacy there, and also other optics defined in the market that could be reused. All in all, it is a very complex decision to make, and you can’t simplify it to “Keep the number of wavelengths to a minimum”. Other than that, your basic ideas of the fully flexible kind of system I generally agree with. Indeed, my preso in Dallas suggested many of these same features. They are a nice ‘wish list’ at this point. The killer question is: can we achieve all of them? It’s not so clear to me now. Sincerely, Frank E. From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Curtis, I'd like to discuss the general architecture approach. We had a number of presentations in Dallas leading towards this approach, but since the Dallas meeting was per-TF, we didn't make any formal decisions. In Atlanta, we started looking into various low-level details, but the big picture is left undefined. My slides are attached. All feedback is welcome. Thanks, Glen On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Curtis Knittle <C.Knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear Colleagues, This coming Thursday, February 18, 11:30-1:00 Mountain Time, we will hold an IEEE 802.3ca 100G-EPON consensus building meeting. Please let me know by Wednesday noon (Mountain Time) whether you have requests for agenda time. If I do not receive agenda requests by noon Wednesday, I will cancel the meeting. Thank you! Curtis Curtis Knittle VP Wired Technologies – R&D CableLabs desk: +1-303-661-3851 mobile: +1-303-589-6869 Stay up to date with CableLabs: Read the blog and follow us on Twitter -- -------------------------------------- Glen Kramer Broadband Technology Group (707)529-0917 |