| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Shimon
I don't understand your message. I have not seen end users ask for 40G. The only server vendor I've seen ask for 40G is Sun.
We have sound solutions today, plus X40 in a year, that will provide robust LAG performance on 4by10G for server apps in 2010 without significantly changing aggregation solutions deployed in 2008.
We have not seen any other server company step forward requesting this. We have seen no end user data to demonstrate the need for this based on the time frames 100G would be available. We have seen no performance data from any end user or aggregation vendor that shows the data flow for 4by10 LAG won't work ... On the contrary ... There has been data to show that the problems for LAG extend beyond the 4 lane count.
No one here is trying to stop this effort. We are simply trying to get you to show us the data to convince us all that this is worth our efforts.
Take care
-joel
----- Original Message -----
From: Shimon Muller <Shimon.Muller@Sun.COM>
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org <STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Fri Apr 06 16:13:31 2007
Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
Chris,
I can't disagree with your observation, because this is the main reason
why I fully support the 100Gb effort.
What troubles me, however, is that you are willing to take at face value the
argument of the "key architects from the three major server manufacturers"
as it relates to 100Gb, but are reluctant to do that when it comes to their
needs for 40Gb.
Why is that? Aren't you being a bit selective here?
Shimon.
Chris Cole wrote On 04/06/07 14:02,:
>Key architects from the three major server manufacturers (SUN, IBM, HP)
>have stated that servers will need 100GE ports starting 5 to 8 years
>from now (see page 3 of my Broad Market Potential presentation from the
>March HSSG meeting, and Muller's presentation from the January HSSG
>meeting.) It is diificult to see how starting to develop technology that
>will migrate into this market can be characterized as departing from
>reality.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OJHA,JUGNU [mailto:jugnu.ojha@AVAGOTECH.COM]
>Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:32 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
>
>Matt, to address your point about BMP for 40G, I can't help but think it
>ironic when even the strongest proponents of 100G say that they do not
>see a market for more than 100's to 1000's of links in the next 5+
>years. We departed from reality long ago....
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Traverso [mailto:matt.traverso@GMAIL.COM]
>Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:27 AM
>To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
>
>I'd like to comment from an optical component / module vendor point of
>view.
>
>Personally I'm not convinced that broad market potential has been
>demonstrated, but... Operating under the assumption that the 40GbE
>broad market potential is verified with end user input:
>- As we heard/saw in Jack Jewel's presentation focused on the cost &
>reliability of the MMF objective, extending from a 1x10G VCSEL to a
>10x10G VCSEL does not represent a linear cost increase -- similarly a
>4x10G would only be an incremental increase
>- The dominant cost in a nx10G MMF interface is likely to be any
>premium charged for the interface IC as well as costs associated with
>the development quad laser drivers & quad amplifiers (or deka drivers
>& amps)
>- I'd like to hear a comment / perspective from the fiber
>manufacturers on the utilization rate of the ribbon fiber strands.
>For a 4x10G MMF approach presumably 8 strands in the 12 ribbon would
>be used 4 for TX and 4 for RX. For a 10x10G MMF approach it would be
>2 @12 with 10 @ Tx and 10 @ RX. What does this do to the cost and
>usage rate metrics of MMF cabling?
>- Would an SMF PMD objective at 40GbE have broad market potential
>(BMP)? Here I am very skeptical
>- Assuming that BMP was shown for an SMF PMD objective, I would
>advocate a 2km serial 40Gbit/s scheme rather than a 4 lambda approach
>as the transmission problems are not as severe
>- This would represent the path that reuses the most technology and
>allows for a compact & low power dissipation end solution
>- As I have stated one of the primary impediments is the availability
>of a low power interface IC -- this is the primary obstacle for OC768
>(40G SONET/SDH) modules
>- A 4 lambda x 10G at single mode would not simply be able to plug in
>the work done on 802.3ae as the technical challenge of MUX/DMUX
>optical loss and packaging would require a new round of investment
>
>In closing I'd like to see some supporting data for the Broad Market
>Potential of 40GbE (including distance / media usage
>comments/assumptions) that reflects the timeframe of standard
>development -- eg. demand/need in 2009-2012.
>
>thanks,
>--matt traverso
>mtraverso@opnext.com
>
>NOTE: This e-mail is being sent from my personal e-mail account rather
>than my corporate e-mail address at Opnext due to default signature
>files embedded in my Opnext e-mail account.
>
>