Dan,
While I share some of
your frustration with the lack of
progress during this week’s HSSG meeting, and some of the individual
points in your presentation, I do not support it. I am in disagreement
with your
Post-Debate Conclusions, and find their tone as not conducive to good
discussion of the best way to move forward within the HSSG. I am aware
of the
passions generated during this week’s debate and understand why you
wrote
your presentation, but wish that it had not been sent out. I am
confident that
after your vacation travel in Europe
with your
family during the next week, you will return to your typical
constructive
approach to resolving difficult issues. I am also optimistic that you
will take
back your Post-Debate Conclusions, and return to your very reasonable
Pre-Debate Conclusions. At that point, you can list me as one of your
supporters. I am also hopeful that other supporters of your
presentation will
do the same.
Good discussion of how to
move forward is critically
dependant on acknowledging that 1) 100GE Broad Market Potential, and 2)
40GE Broad
Market Potential have been established well above the threshold for
802.3 Five Criteria.
Continued debate of this will only lead to delay in addressing the
substantive
issue of what is the best way to move forward in developing 100GE and
40GE
standards. A possible framework for this discussion is outlined in
“HSSG
Next Steps Proposal” presentation that HSSG participants authorized as
a post-deadline
meeting submission.
http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/may07/cole_03_0507.pdf
An insight that has come
out of the HSSG discussion of 100GE
and 40GE rates during the past several months is that fundamental
development
cycles for new network equipment architectures and new server
architectures appear
to be different. A new data switch architecture development requires
massive investment,
which leads network equipment developers to want large jumps in data
rate, like
factors of 10x, to allow a return on that investment. An intermediate
data rate
causes an increase in the overall development investment, and a
shortening of
the useful life of network equipment which reduces the return on that
investment.
Economics of server
development appear to be different and
more favorable to shorter development cycles, i.e. more frequent
architecture changes.
This drives the need for more granular jumps in data rate, like 4x.
Ethernet
has not done this historically, but that may be because protocols other
then
Ethernet were used to bridge the gap. Going forward, more granular
Ethernet
data rate steps may become the norm, rather then just a one time
anomaly. This
difference in development economics is also consistent with how often
some end
users replace servers versus networking equipment. It suggests that
moving forward,
network data rates may go from 10G to 100G to 1T, while server data
rates go
from 10G to 40G to 100G to 400G to 1T. This difference in data rate
needs is
not necessarily bad for either industry. More frequent server
replacement may
extend the useful life of network equipment (good for network equipment
developers), and large jumps in network data rates assures availability
of
aggregation capacity to support multiple server cycles (good for server
equipment developers.)
As we discuss how to best
move forward with developing 100GE
and 40GE standards, any approach needs to have the following two
characteristics; 1) permits network equipment developers to have a
single 100GE
architecture, i.e. does not force them into developing a dual rate
100GE/40GE
architecture, and 2) gives server equipment developers a 40GE server
data rate.
It may also need the recognition that some data rates are optimized for
server
interconnect and not intended for networking.
I look forward to a
constructive discussion on how best to move
both standards forward.
Chris
Subject:
[HSSG] Soliciting Support for my Presentation
Date:
Thu, 31 May 2007 05:25:12 -0000
|
Hello,
Subsequent
to yesterday's debate, I feel it is necessary to address some of
the issues raised in a formally documented manner.
I
have produced a presentation which I have requested authorization to
present at today's meeting. If you support the content of this
presentation, please reply back to me asap.
http://www.dovenetworking.com/Dove-02-May-HSSG.pdf
I
am open to feedback as well.
Best
Regards,
Dan Dove
----
Principal Engineer, LAN PHY Technology
Dove Networking Solutions - Serving ProCurve
916-785-4187 (Roseville
Office)
530-389-9315 (Home Office)
530-906-3683 (Cell)
http://www.dovenetworking.com
|