| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| Adam Bechtel
<abechtel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
08/07/2006 12:10 PM
|
|
| "John DAmbrosia"
<jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
08/04/2006 08:28 PM |
|
| "Lane Patterson"
<lpatterson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
07/25/2006 04:03 PM |
|
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 |
|
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