We (Yahoo!) don’t use SR either, and
we definitely are a datacenter centric business. In addition to Lane’s
reasons below:
1. Copper technologies have replaced 95%
of my need for short range optics and cabling (the remaining 5% being storage
related).
2. There is always a significant delay to
support new speeds on MM (e.g., GE, 10GE). We adopted 10GE before SR was
available.
3. In the 2004-5 timeframe we were experiencing
a 3x leadtime on procuring SR vs. LR optics. That has since changed.
In the end, the flexibility of laying SMF
in our datacenters outweighed the cost difference.
-Adam
From: Paul Kolesar
[mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:35
AM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [HSSG] Fw: [hssg]
CORRECTED 10GigE LR vs SR
John DAmbrosia asked that I forward this thread to the
802.3 HSSG reflector so that discussions could continue after the
EA-facilitated HSSG reflector shuts down. I have modified the subject
line to make it more to the point.
Regards,
Paul Kolesar
CommScope Enterprise® Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone: 972.792.3155
Fax: 972.792.3111
eMail: pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Forwarded by Paul F
Kolesar/CommScope on 08/07/2006 11:28 AM -----
|
"John DAmbrosia"
<jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
08/04/2006 08:28 PM
|
|
To
|
<PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [hssg] CORRECTED (RE: 10GigE LR vs SR
(RE: [hssg] Update of CFI Presentation to IEEE))
|
|
Paul,
Please note that the Ethernet Alliance facilitated HSSG
reflector is in the process of being shut down.
The
HSSG Reflector has been set up and is ready to go. Please go to the URL
below for directions on how to join the IEEE 802.3 HSSG Reflector.
http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/reflector.html
In
addition, please note that the HSSG website is up and running, and may be
viewed at
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/hssg/
Upon
joining I would suggest forwarding this message to the IEEE 802.3 reflector.
The cost model is a big one that the SG must address.
Hope
you had a good vacation.
John
From: PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 7:16 PM
To: Lane Patterson
Cc: hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [hssg] CORRECTED (RE: 10GigE LR vs SR (RE: [hssg]
Update of CFI Presentation to IEEE))
Lane,
sorry for the delayed response. Vacationitus interuptus.
I appreciate the particular circumstances of your business and how they lead to
the choices you have made. But as you say, your center is not like that
of the typical data center.
While the discussion of price is a sensitive issue, and direct prices are not
to be mentioned on the reflector, I have confirmed with my PLM that those you
stated (in your previous version which you have since corrected below) are two
orders of magnitude too large. Perhaps the decimal point was left out. I
bring this up because such large discrepancies provide extreme distortion to
the view. In addition, it is not really possible to do a relative cost
assessment when absolute costs of one item are compared to percentage cost
differences of another item. What is needed is for all to be distilled to
the same units ($), then made into relative costs for comparison.
I agree that MM cable costs more than SM cable, and that the relative cost for
the same cable construction is in the ballpark of what you stated for very high
count cables (3 to 4x).
However, one of the challenges in making sensible relative cost comparisons is
picking a set of assumptions that is relevant. In this discussion, than
means comparing similar units of scale. For example, if one installs a
very high fiber count cable that can support many channels, then one should not
expect the differential in cost between a single channel's worth of PMDs to be
used in justifying the added cost of the entire cable. It needs to be
broken down to the same relative units. In this case, that means the
differential between 2 strands of the MM cable compared to two strands of the
SM cable, for the channel length of interest, plus the associated connector,
panel and patch cord hardware that make up the channels. Here, the
channel lengths of interest must be confined to those that can be supported by
both PMDs, since lengths exceeding the capability of one of the PMDs are out of
scope. If you examine the cost models from on that basis, perhaps you
will have a better appreciation for my statements.
The cross connect lengths of 150m that you mentioned are not clear to me. Is
that the length from the equipment to the cross connect or the length of the
entire channel from equipment thru cross connect to equipment? If the
latter, then -S with OM3 will certainly work. If the former, which is
what I think you likely meant, then it is a matter of connection loss vs
supportable distance. Solutions exist that can support 300m channels
thru a cross connect for 10GBASE-S.
Regards,
Paul Kolesar
CommScope Enterprise® Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone: 972.792.3155
Fax: 972.792.3111
eMail: pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
"Lane Patterson"
<lpatterson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
07/25/2006 04:03 PM
|
|
To
|
<hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
[hssg] CORRECTED (RE: 10GigE LR vs SR (RE:
[hssg] Update of CFI Presentation to IEEE))
|
|
My apologies to John and to the list for inadvertently putting pricing data in
my last post, it won't happen again :-)
I have corrected this below, so folks who wish could reply to the message.
Cheers,
-Lane
-----Original Message-----
From: Lane Patterson
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 5:53 PM
To: 'PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: 10GigE LR vs SR (RE: [hssg] Update of CFI Presentation to
IEEE)
Paul,
Very much appreciate your comments on this. As an Internet exchange point,
I realize we're probably not representative of the typical single-company data
center environment here, but wanted to share the reasons why SR did not make it
into our operating environment. Apologies in advance if this is a bit too
off-topic for the HSSG reflector.
1. We already had legacy 62.5 micron Multimode as well as SMF pulled in
conduits approx 1.5km in our multi-building campus sites
2. On these campus conduit builds, MMF cost us more than 4x the price per
linear foot, compared to SMF.
3. Within our data centers (sized at roughly 100K-230K sq ft),
cross-connect lengths routinely hit 150m
4. There's tremendous OpEx involved in standardizing on a new type of
fiber--I am checking now to see what's involved in supporting OM3 and it is about
a 6 month process to evaluate, stock, productize, and train folks.
5. Most of our 10GigE customers are ISPs using Cisco or Juniper routers,
and commonly request LR
6. Our cost for SR is only about 30% less than cost of LR, which is not
enough to justify stocking two types of parts, spares, etc. when we can
standarize on LR-only and simplify OpEx and pre-provisioning and support
process.
Cheers,
-Lane
Lane Patterson
lane@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chief Technologist
Equinix, Inc.
+1 650-513-7012 (w)
+1 408-829-6464 (c)
skype: lane_p
sip:17476493559@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 4:59 PM
To: Lane Patterson; hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [hssg] Update of CFI Presentation to IEEE
Lane,
I find it odd that Equinix has not realized the advantages of deploying SR. While
its distance capability is rather limited on legacy multimode fibers, it is
rated up to 300 m on OM3 (a.k.a. 850nm laser-optimized 50um) fiber, a distance
sufficient to serve the vast majority of both in-building backbones and data
centers.
From recent presentation materials from a major Ethernet networking gear
supplier, 10GbE multimode port shipments grew to equal singlemode port
shipments in 2005.
From this I conclude that multimode is providing value to a significant
percentage of customers. That value includes the fact that those who have
installed OM3 cabling are able to deploy either SR or LX4 to 300 m. This
freedom allows the customer to choose from these PHYs based on several criteria
including not only cost, but also availability, and port-type homogeniety
considerations.
In most cases cost will be the primary factor. While it is true that over
time the cost differential between port types compresses, the differential
between SR and either LR or LX4 has been, and continues to be, quite
significant, easily justifying the deployment of OM3 cabling for new buildouts.
Data center cabling must often be deployed under tight schedules. This
has lead to great acceptance of solutions that provide cabling in predetermined
lengths terminated with array connectors at the factory. The array
terminations are compact and allow easier deployment of the pre-terminated
cables. The arrays plug into fanout modules or hydra-cords for
administration of duplex circuits. Factory termination can provide
high-quality polish, and fanouts provide worry-free transmit-to-receive signal
routing (a.k.a. polarity), along with very rapid turn up in the field because
the installer simply plugs components together instead of handling the
termination process on site. Virtually all of our data center projects
deploy this type of solution.
There is an additional advantage to these cabling solutions. They protect
the customer's investment by providing a migration path for support of parallel
fiber applications, such as those defined by InfiniBand. One simply
removes the fanout and administers the parallel application using array patch
cords, thus reusing the cables.
TIA TR-42 has standardized these types of structured cabling solutions in
TIA-568-B.1-7 "Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard,
Part 1 - General Requirements, Addendum 7 - Guidelines for Maintaining Polarity
Using Array Connectors". This standard provides a useful reference
for committees that develop parallel fiber applications. The parallel
methods defined within this standard support all the parallel applications of
Fibre Channel, OIF, and InfiniBand.
An increasing installation rate of these solutions is building the installed
base of cabling that not only fulfills the immediate demands of tight
construction schedules, but also protects the customer's investment by
providing the flexibility to be easily reconfigured for future parallel
applications. And while this solution offers the same benefits to both
multimode and singlemode media, 850nm laser-optimized 50um fiber represents
about 80% of the cabling mix in our sales.
Given that the commonly held view regarding deployment of a higher speed
Ethernet is that it will occur initially within data centers, it would be an
obvious error not to define a PHY/PMD that operates over this cabling
infrastructure.
Paul Kolesar
CommScope Enterprise® Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone: 972.792.3155
Fax: 972.792.3111
eMail: pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
"Lane Patterson"
<lpatterson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
07/20/2006 05:15 AM
|
|
To
|
"David Martin"
<dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxx>, <hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [hssg] Update of CFI Presentation to IEEE
|
|
As an end user, I couldn't agree more. Our view is that 10GigE has already
radically changed the economics of data center/campus (LR) and metro (ER/ZR)
connectivity, compared to the OC192 alternative, and somewhat limited
scalability of LAG and ECMP. I would expect that 100G would be equally
successful at a 4x/2.5x benefit to cost ratio.
I also agree with Aaron and Bruce's comments about PMD/PHY--the 2-10km range
serves data center, in-building riser fiber, and campus environments nicely.
Most early uses of 100G links will be for such aggregated trunking.
In contrast, with our 10GigE experience, SR was almost completely useless
with its distance limitations and eventual marginal price diff with respect to
LR.
Cheers,
-Lane
-----Original Message-----
From: David Martin [mailto:dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wed Jul 19 10:58:33 2006
To: hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [hssg] Update of CFI Presentation to
IEEE
John,
Several comments were made during the CFI last night that 10GigE hasn't
yet achieved the traditional "10x rate for 3x the cost" economic
feasibility, and as such it's unlikely that a higher speed Ethernet rate
would be any more successful.
Some other comments were made that since 10GigE (and quite likely the
next rate) broke new ground as network infrastructure, rather than
traditional NICs and switch ports, the "10x rate for 3x the cost"
rule
of thumb should be revisited.
In carrier transport networks, the equivalent rule has been "4x rate for
2.5x the cost". Just thought I'd pass that along for reference for when
this issue is considered.
...Dave
David W. Martin
Nortel Networks
dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxx>
+1 613 765 2901 (esn 395)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________________________________
From: John DAmbrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:37 PM
To: hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [hssg] Update of CFI Presentation to IEEE
All,
Last night's presentation went extremely well. Approximately 200 to 220
people were present throughout the presentation.
After the presentation, the following straw polls were asked:
Straw Poll #1 - (For the Call-For-Interest)
Should a Study Group be formed for "Higher Speed Ethernet"?
Results
Yes - 147
No - 9
Abstain - 31
Straw Poll #2 (For Participation)
I would participate in the "Higher Speed" Study Group in IEEE 802.3.
Tally: 108
Straw Poll #3 (For Participation)
My company would support participation in the "Higher Speed" Study
Group
in IEEE 802.3
Tally: 76
Thus, the results were very positive and encouraging. This does not
mean that the Study Group has been formed yet.
A motion will be made at the IEEE 802.3 Closing Plenary on Thursday.
Thus, for those individuals who registered and are at the IEEE Plenary
this week; please make sure you stay until the motion has been made and
the vote taken. If the motion is successful on Thursday, then a request
will be made to the IEEE 802.3 EC for approval of the formation of the
study group.
John D'Ambrosia