| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Scott,
With regard to the photo, I am glad you saw the humor
although I fear you may have misinterpreted some fine points it held. Perhaps
you are seeing things from a different side of the
curtain?
I will correct a few points you
made.
First off; "The 100GE ONLY camp wants to set the
standard the way it's always been done with a 10X leap and that's the only way
they will accept it." I hate to say it, but I believe this statement is patently
false. The issue is not that we will "only accept a 10X leap", but rather
that a 10X leap has been demonstrated to meet all PAR and 5 criteria
elements by a super-majority of the HSSG and 40G has not.
Secondly; I have not said that 40G PMDs have not been shown
to be technically feasible. My issue is with "Economic Feasibility". To
put it simply, if we can get 4X the performance for nX the cost, that needs to
be demonstrated and then as a group, the HSSG needs to determine whether that
justifies the investment in a standard. Thus, I have not denied an obvious
truth, I have defined one. Perhaps you are denying one?
Thirdly; The concern about whether or not 40G might/might
not get a PAR if they took an alternative strategy of standing on their own two
feet rather than using the 100G PAR as a hostage is worth discussion. How should
we proceed in the standards process? Should we tie alternative technologies
together and demand that they be approved together, or let them stand on their
own? You might think one way, I might think another. We can discuss it and as a
group make that decision. I am simply trying to get the elephant in the room
identified for what it is, and not pretend that it is something
else.
When we talk about "Distinct Identity" in a Project
Authorization Request, we are telling the IEEE that the solution we are
proposing will stand by itself and that it will not interfere with alternative
standards projects. There are many fine lines that can be used to draw
distinction, and these lines should be discussed and agreed upon. But to deny
that a line exists serves nobody. There is absolutely zero doubt that 100G,
being 10X faster than 10G, can be defined as distinct. I think there is a line
between 40G and 100G that is much harder to distinguish and thus believe we
should explore it rather than ignore it. The line between 40G and 4x10 LAG is
even finer. You may disagree, this is what the process is all about. So, to
specifically respond to your question, regarding frazier_03_0507, yes, there are
objections to the presentation. Simply making a declaration of distinct identity
does not make it so. In addition, making declarations with regard to the
performance/cost ratio being better than 4x10 LAG without quantification, does
not demonstrate economic feasibility. My presentation dove_02_0507.pdf shows
that 4x10LAG can be a lower cost solution than 40G and that the performance
difference has not been quantified. Lets quantify it and then determine if it
merits the cost/investment in a standard by presentation, motions, and by
following a process that is defendable.
In addition, if you look at my presentation
dove_01_0507.pdf you will see that the HSSG has received many-many presentations
on the economic and technical feasibility of 100G PMDs and more importantly,
motions declaring that the HSSG has determined economic and technical
feasibility for 100G PMDs, in addition to all of the other motions that are
necessary to establish group concensus on the PAR. Look at the record for 40G
and you will see that the group has not
received sufficient presentations, nor made/affirmed motions in
support of 40G PAR components. You show me the motions, and I will relinquish
this point. Otherwise, I hope your eyes are opened to my concern that 40G has
not been proven to meet the 5 criteria.
You are right that this is the HSSG, and not 100G Ethernet
study group. If you inspect the record, you will see multiple motions/straw
polls that show the group had centered on 100G and established that a 40G PAR
should not delay 100G. Unfortunately, this clear direction by the HSSG has been
violated by the events of our last meeting.
Confusion in the market - Different PMDs? Perhaps this is a
way for 40G to obtain unique identity. I think that different PMDs would have
helped a lot, but adding OTN signaling rates to a backplane or clustering PMD is
incongruous at best, and perhaps a bit deceitful at worst. What do you think
about that? Assuming the PMDs are focused on server connect, how do we ensure
that a 10Km PMD or a 40Km PMD do not spring up later and create the much broader
market confusion we are concerned about? Has the acceptable level of market
confusion of having two higher speed Ethernet standards developed simultaneously
been explored and agreed upon?
Regarding super-majority and super-minorities and the IEEE
rules... these are the rules. How we use them, and what our motivations are for
using them in a particular way are of interest. I spoke at the meeting in
support of the rules. I understand them and appreciate the value proposition
they offer. I was addressing the motivation for using them in the way I
perceived them being used, to essentially authorize an unproven project by
holding a proven project hostage.
I understand your apparent concern about 40G not being able
to stand on its own two feet. I understand why the 40G camp would take this
tactic, but I do not condone it.
100G Ethernet clearly meets the 5 criteria, and 40G *might*
meet the 5 criteria, but this has not been shown.
Rather than continue to belabor the issue, I think we
should figure out a path for resolution that does not include holding one PAR or
the other hostage. There may be such a resolution and I would certainly prefer
to see it developed, rather than continue in the stalemate we have today. The
stalemate serves nobody.
I have a few ideas for how to move forward rolling around
in my head. I will be happy to share them when they have been fully formulated
and will do this as soon as possible.
Dan
From: Scott Kipp [mailto:skipp@BROCADE.COM] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:52 AM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [HSSG] Soliciting Support for my Presentation Dan,
Your imitation of the totalitarian Nikita
Khrushchev was a good joke and people will understand that you were having
fun. Like all good jokes, it was based on stretching the truth.
The 100GE ONLY camp wants to set the standard the way it's always been done
with a 10X leap and that's the only way they will accept it. We're lucky
that the IEEE has a strict rule of 75% approval for the PAR, so that consensus
needs to be built to move the standard forward. I feel that minorities
such as associates from Intel, Broadcom and SUN should have a say in the future
of the HSSG.
The 40GE camp has never claimed 100GE is invalid.
They claim that the HSSG - that is defining speeds beyond 10G - is invalid
without 40GE. This is the HSSG project, not the 100GE
project.
One characteristic of totalitarians is that they
deny obvious truths. One claim you made in
Geneva was that 40GE has not proven/shown any PMDs. Since the
40GE camp is proposing to use a subset of the 100GE PMDs, does the 40GE group
need to prove the capability of doing less than 100GE?
Can anyone argue that doing 4 lanes of 10G is not
technically feasible while doing 10 lanes of 10G is?
There are two standards-based transceivers that should be
out within a year that qualify as 40GE transceivers - the QSFP and the
X40. No 100GE transceivers are being standardized, so only
proprietary solutions are available at 100GE. Of course we could have
standard 10X10G solutions by 2010, but good luck creating a 4X25G standard
by 2010.
Others have claimed that the 40GE camp has
not met the 5 criteria of the PAR. Howard Frazier showed how
40GE met the 5 criteria in frazier_03_0507. Are there objections to this
presentation?
Another objection is that 40GE will cause confusion in the
market place. With distinct PMDs, the customer should be able to
distinguish a 40GE port from a 100GE port. The customer will not be able
to plug cables willy-nilly, but they shouldn't do that anyway on mission
critical systems. Interoperability concerns will not bring links down, but
users will not be able to bring links up that are not properly
cabled/configured.
The main suggestion of the 100GE ONLY camp is that 40GE
should create its own PAR. Besides doubling the work for the IEEE
standards approval process, the main concern is that the 40GE PAR would not be
approved for the reasons that the 100GE ONLY camp is currently stating.
This strategy of kicking 40GE out of the HSSG and then nipping it in the bud in
the PAR process has been described as the divide and conquer strategy.
Keeping Ethernet speeds above 10G that are very similar in characteristics (but
not PMDs) is the most straightforward process. The ugly and distorted
path is having two projects trying to proceed at the same time when one
project is a simple subset of the other project.
Can 40GE be included in the HSSG PAR if it is a simple
subset of the 100GE PAR? This would require minimal standards effort as
shown in frazier_04_0507 and muller_01_0407.
If the 100GE ONLY camp has
a super-majority of 75%, then 40GE will be forced to move on to
its own PAR. While we still operate under the rules of the IEEE, the 25%
minority can not be thrown under the wheels of 100GE. The free markets are
better at determining the merit of a product than tens of people in the
HSSG.
Kind regards,
Scott Kipp
QSFP Chair
Office of the CTO
Brocade From: Dove, Dan [mailto:dan.dove@HP.COM] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:50 PM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [HSSG] Soliciting Support for my Presentation Hi Chris,
Thanks for your concern about my frustration with the way
things were going in Geneva. After a week of touring Rome, Tuscany and the Cinque-Terra
National Park with my family, I feel totally rested and relaxed and ready to get
back to work. After a relaxing week in Italy, I still think
that my frustration with the debate in Geneva was justified.
As I said in my presentation, it was clear that a
super-minority was willing to stall 100G progress in an effort to get an
unprepared and unjustified 40G project through the process. The debate after my
presentation, including last-minute additions to their objectives to gain a
few votes demonstrated that I was on target completely. Fortunately, the
record shows this as well.
In hindsight, I have only one regret with regard to the
presentation I gave on Thursday morning. The photograph I inserted as an
attempt to provide some levity into a serious discussion (which I am known to
do) might be misinterpreted by someone who was not in the meeting and thus
unaware that it was NOT a real part of the debate, but rather a staged photo
designed to make light of the meeting location which was taken before the
debate began. I should have left that out of my presentation so that the
record would not contain any ambiguity as to the
completely professional approach I took to the debate.
Now, how do we move forward?
I think the path is relatively straight forward if we
choose to take a straight forward path. It can get ugly and distorted, only if
we choose to take an ugly and distorted path.
The record shows that 100G Ethernet has been justified
as a project for the IEEE 802.3. We have shown economic feasibility,
technical feasibility, distinct identity, compatibility, and broad market
potential. Up until Geneva, there were only a few that would argue against this.
I respect the difference of opinion held by those who have issues with the
technical or economic feasibility of 100G, but they were a very small minority
and their concerns do not merit delaying the project.
In Geneva, when I raised the motion to clarify this point,
the most vocal argument made against 100G being
proven was "Without 40G in the PAR, these conclusions are no longer valid".
So all of the work to justify a 100G project that was done prior to Geneva, and
voted on with overwhelming concensus, suddenly lost its merit? I don't think so.
I think it was a transparent argument posed to rationalize the minority
demand to add 40G into the PAR. There was little argument (and only by that
small but persistant minority) against 100G being proven as a stand-alone
project by the work we have done.
The straightforward path is obvious. The HSSG should
forward a PAR for 100G Ethernet as it has been written, reviewed, and approved
by a super-majority of the HSSG prior to Geneva. The super-minority should
recognize that stalling a well developed PAR will continue to be perceived by
the majority of the HSSG, our customers, and by outsiders, as
counterproductive.
In addition, as I initially proposed and subsequently
demonstrated, I am open to studying 40G as a server interconnect solution.
Consistent with my first presentation, we should consider it as a
separate PAR and perhaps in a new study group focused on that market need.
Such a project would have to be shaped to ensure that was
economically feasible, distinct, and that it would not result in
market confusion or an unjustified amount of standardization work. I think this
is a reasonable set of criteria for advancing a project and to protect our
customers and the industry from yet another minority-driven compromise that
forces the industry and the market to make a decision we did not have
the discipline to make ourselves.
Dan From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@FINISAR.COM] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:14 AM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [HSSG] Soliciting Support for my Presentation 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 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
|