| Folks,
I had several conversations off line and some concerns were raised. I would like to address a few here:
1) This is no different than option C (John D'Ambrosia proposal). It's true, but 1 PAR failed, 2 parallel PARs failed, sequential PAR failed. No matter what we do, if and when we move forward we have to pick one of these options.
2) What's in name change? I share Dan Dove's concerns about economic feasibility and distinct identity of he 40GE. My hope is that using "Lane Bonding" will clarify for everyone in the Market what the purpose of each option is.
3) APL was not received very well, what now? APL was looking at bonding from 2..N, using a somewhat complex technique that causes variable overhead. The benefit of bonding in protocol such as PCI Express and Infiniband is there simplicity and fix multiplier (i.e. it's not a range from 2 to N, but few chosen fixed values). We can achieve a PCS shim layer that does this for 10G.
Cheers Med On 2-Jun-07, at 8:55 PM, Trey Malpass wrote: Hi Med,
I am in support of your proposal to move the HSSG efforts forward. The 40G and 100G markets are indeed distinct from each other and thus have differing requirements. The attempt to lump these differing requirements into a single project has been futile and they should therefore be individually justified on their own merits. I think that each contingent has justified their respective markets and that the work going forward to generate a PAR and 5 criteria for each proposal individually should be minimal.
Trey Malpass - Consultant for Huawei
********************************* Trey Malpass Principal Consultant Malpass Technology, LLC 29863 Canterbury Circle Evergreen, CO 80439 Phone: 303-670-1577 Fax: 303-670-4501 Cell: 303-588-1422 *********************************
Med Belhadj wrote:Folks,
I agree that we need to find a way to move forward. In the spirit of trying to find a common ground I attached the following proposal.
Comments constructive (or otherwise) are welcome ;). Cheers Med On 1-Jun-07, at 6:40 AM, Marcus Duelk wrote:
Hi Chris,
thanks for your email. I agree that only a constructive discussion
will move us forward.
I personally find it a pity that the HSSG could not agree on accepting
Howard's motion since the *technical concerns* that many of us had
regarding transport compatibility would have been addressed.
My personal impression is that those who voted 'NO' on that motion
still have other types of concerns such as investment costs into both 40G
and 100G, or the possible negative impact of 40G on 100G. I hope that
these can be somehow addressed at the July meeting.
Again, my impression is that the technical concerns regarding 40 GbE
have been taken care of.
Marcus
..--
___________________________
Marcus Duelk
Bell Labs / Alcatel-Lucent
Crawford Hill HOH R-237
791 Holmdel-Keyport Road
Holmdel, NJ 07733, USA
fon +1 (732) 888-7086
fax +1 (732) 888-7074
|