| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Wenbin,
I appreciate your affirmation of my concerns. Just so that
it is clear, I am totally open to a 40G standard if the issues I have raised are
addressed.
I am honestly hoping that those who strongly support a 40G
proposal will use this list (and their own lists) to craft a solid and
complete plan for July so that we can advance two PARs out of that meeting.
There are issues to be addressed, and there will be some untrodden ground that
needs to be understood, but I believe its doable and really hope that the HSSG
comes together to solve both distinct market needs.
Regards,
Dan From: Wenbin Jiang [mailto:Wenbin.Jiang@JDSU.COM] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:42 PM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [HSSG] The List I agree with Dan. Especially, the economic
feasibility and distinct identity of 40GE have not yet been
demonstrated. Assuming 100GE will proceed, I am not
convinced on the broad market potential of 40GE either. Alternative technology
is suffiient to cover the low volume need before 2012, and by then, 100GE will
have already taken off to meet the market demand as perceived by the
40GE. Wenbin Jiang JDSU Transmission Module
BU From: Folks, I committed to
offering up my
perspective on what has not been done (and should be
done) in order to proceed with a 40G PAR in the July
timeframe. This list is
subject to review, consideration, and revision if I have either missed
something or included something that does not belong. Some of the
determinations made are subjective, and you may disagree with my conclusion.
This is also worthy of discussion and resolution via concensus. I have run
it by people on both sides of the discussion and made amendments per their
feedback. If you have additional feedback, please recognize that I am trying to
be fair and willing to consider your feedback. When it is all
said and done, this is *my* list and not the HSSG's list. If the HSSG does
not agree with me, then I will gladly accept the consensus of the group. I
based this on the history of presentations and motions made in the HSSG and my
experience working in 802.3 over the last 20+ years. There is no defined
roadmap, but I think it should help us to reach an agreement on how to
proceed. I should mention
that when I say "Not Done" relative to a motion, this means "not made and
passed by a necessary majority". Motion to add 40G to
HSSG Objectives (Not Done) Demonstration of Broad
Market Potential (Done) Motion that HSSG has
demonstrated 40G Broad Market Potential (Not
Done) Demonstration of
Technical Feasibility (Done) Motion that HSSG has
demonstrated 40G Technical Feasibility (Not
Done) Demonstration of
Economic Feasibility (Not Done) -- 40G
cost/performance vs 4x10G LAG cost/performance (Incomplete)
-- I
believe a good presentation on this subject would show the relative performance
of 40G to 4x10G LAG in quantitative terms. The latency comparison was
a start, but please show how this translates to protocol/system
performance. I believe we need to see a substantial performance benefit given
the cost differential is minimal. Motion that HSSG has
demonstrated 40G Economic Feasibility (Not Done) Demonstration of
Distinct Identity (Not Done) -- Show why the
2.5X cost/performance difference justifies a
project. -- 40G functionally
distinct from 4x10G LAG? (Done) --
How will the
HSSG address 40G 10Km and 40Km
links and would their
addition undermine distinct
identity? (Not Done) -- HSSG
position on OTN rate and WAN PMD (Not Done) Motion that HSSG has
demonstrated 40G Distinct Identity (Not Done) Motion
to Adopt 40G PAR proposal (Not
Done) Motion to Adopt
compatibility criterion proposal (Not Done) Motion to Adopt
distinct identity criterion proposal (Not Done) Motion
to Adopttechnical feasibility criterion proposal (Not
Done) Motion to Adopt
economic feasibility criterion proposal (Not
Done) Motion to Adopt
broad market criterion proposal (Not Done) I hope at a
minimum that this clarifies my concern in If there are any
remaining items to be completed to forward a 100G PAR, please respond with your
input as we should try to get both
proposals ready to forward
for the July meeting. Since the
March meeting , I see no additional work required beyond the
formal motions needed to forward the PAR.
ProCurve
Networking by HP |