| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| Brad Booth <bbooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
08/08/2006 11:01 AM
|
|
| Brad Booth <bbooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
08/07/2006 07:36 PM
|
|
| Adam Bechtel <abechtel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
08/07/2006 12:10 PM
|
|
| "John DAmbrosia"
<jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
08/04/2006 08:28 PM |
|
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 |
|
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