| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
John, et al., >During our first meeting, I anticipate spending a lot of time focusing on objectives. At the >closing plenary I highlighted two issues / objectives that the SG would have to consider: > > Tradition of 10x leap in speed I think the speed increase has to be 10x. The standards development process will take at least 3.5 to 4 years to complete. Anything less than 100G will force people who are currently aggregating 10G links to continue to use aggregation, only using fewer higher-speed, and more expensive links. End users prefer using a single link over aggregating physical-layer links into a logical link because of the complications that come with aggregation. The data in the CFI presentation was just a sample of cases in which network operators we're aggregating 10G links to accommodate the demand on their networks. There will be many more by 2011 (when I expect there would be 'real' products on the market). > Multiple Reach Targets > It was also presented that the focus of this effort wasn’t for a desktop application, and >that the cost model needs to be considered. I believe we need to adjust the cost model in such a way that it is aligned with the ecosystem. It is unreasonable, in my opinion, to expect a 10x/3x model to apply to systems designed for wide-area/metro-area networks. I also think it's short-sighted to ignore the rest of the ecosystem and develop Ethernet only in the part of the ecosystem where the original cost model applies. Regards, Mike -- Michael J. Bennett Sr. Network Engineer LBLnet Services Group Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Tel. 510.486.7913 |