Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
Petar,
I'd like to understand the breakpoints between volume
and relative costs depending on the reach. For example, if 50m reach
satisfies 70% of the data center market and a proposed 50m solution
could be 3x less expensive than a 100m solution, then a 50m target may be
more appropriate. That's why it is important to understand the reach
distribution in the data center. Knowing where the volume lies will permit
the study group to target an objective (and hopefully a solution) that is
optimal for that reach.
Thanks,
Brad
In HPC and Datacenter environment
one can often find (and needs) distances that are closer to 100m. Some of the
optical solutions might have the same specs for 50m/100, particularly since we
plan on using only OM3. Unless the line rate becomes much higher than 10 Gb/s,
the difference in penalties and attentuation is minimal, so we should go with
the optimal solution (cost/distance).
Regards,
Peter
Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM
Research
P.O.Box 218 (mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134
(shipping)
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
e-mail:
petarp@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax:
(914)-945-4134
| Brad Booth
<bbooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
08/22/2006 01:04 PM
|
Please respond
to
Brad Booth
<bbooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| Re: [HSSG] Reach
Objectives |
|
I agree with Geoff. As mentioned, the 802.3an task force
worked very hard to achieve the 100m reach. The 10GBASE-T 100m reach was
driven by the horizontal cabling specification, not what the typical deployment
was in a data center.
Cheers,
Brad
From: Geoff Thompson
[mailto:gthompso@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:55
AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG]
Reach Objectives
Roger-
At
03:47 AM 8/22/2006 , Roger Merel wrote:
Agree with Drew. Have a few additional comments on
other reachs:
For reach objectives, we should start
with customer based needs (for broad market potential) and only amend if an
obvious technical limitation with compelling economics can t readily meet the
broad customer need.
Specifically:
- Long Reach probably should be
set at 80km rather than 100km (as this is the common hut-to-hut amplifier
spacing in telecom)
- While 50m does serve a useful portion of the market
(smaller datacenters and/or the size of a large computer cluster), it is
somewhat constraining as I ve been lead to understand that the reach needed in
larger datacenters is continuing to out-grow the 100m meter definition but the
100m definition at least serves the customer well. Certainly 10G-BaseT
worked awfully hard to get to 100m (for Datacenter interconnect).
I wouldn't attach a lot of creedence to the 10GBASE-T goal
for 100 meters. It was, I believe, mainly driven by the traditional distance in
horizontal (i.e. wiring closet to desktop) distances rather than any thorough
examination of data center requirements.
Geoff
- For both in-building reaches (50m & 300m;
or 100m & 300m), the bigger issue which affects the PMD is the loss budget
arising from the number of patch panels. The shorter / datacenter reach
should include a budget for 1 patch panel. The longer / enterprise reach
should include a budget for 2 patch panels (one in the datacenter and 1 in the
remote switch closet).
From: Drew
Perkins [mailto:dperkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:24
AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG]
Reach Objectives
John,
I suggest dividing Metro
into Metro Short Reach at 10 km (equivalent application to 10GBASE-LR) and Metro
Intermediate Reach at 40 km (equivalent application to
10GBASE-ER).
Drew
_____________________________
Drew
Perkins
Chief Technology Officer
Infinera
Corporation
1322 Bordeaux Drive
Sunnyvale, CA
94089
Phone: 408-572-5308
Cell:
408-666-1686
Fax:
408-904-4644
Email: dperkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW :
http://www.infinera.com
_____________________________
From: John DAmbrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:38 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [HSSG] Reach
Objectives
All,
We have had some conversation on the
reflector regarding reach objectives. Summarizing what has been discussed
on the reflector I see the following
Reach Objectives
Long-Haul
--> 100+ km
Metro --> 10+
km
Data Center --> 50m & 300m
Data Center
Reach Segregation
Intra-rack
Inter-rack
Horizontal
runs
Vertical risers
Use this data to identify a single
low-cost solution that would address a couple of the reach
objectives
Other Areas
During the course of
the CFI there were individuals who wanted Backplane Applications kept in for
consideration, but I have not heard any further input in this area. Are
there still individuals who wish to propose Backplane as an
objective?
John