Re: [HSSG] The List
Thanks Paul for undertaking the task of this cost
analysis. I must say though, it's most curious that the task of 40G
module cost analysis has been left to a fiber supplier. You're truly
dedicated. I've been traveling without email access, hence the delayed
response.
My responses are in red. For you CrackBerry Warriors without colored
text, the responses start on the next line following Paul's questions, preceded
by JJ - .
Jack
Jack,
thank you for chiming in. We need more of this type of input.
Your response is provocative on several points, so consequently I have
some questions and comments about your statements:
1) First, SFP+ achieves the 300m SR objective with
similar ease as XFP.
What is
absorbing or mitigating the jitter that is handled by the CDR in the XFP?
Is it an external CDR, and EDC function, reduced temperature range, or
improved signal quality from the upper level divides to which the SFP+
interfaces? Or was the presence of the CDR in the XFP unwarranted in the
first place? Or are you saying that SFP+ supports a 300m link despite
being noncompliant to 10GBASE-S specs?
JJ - The SFP+ architecture utilizes Tx pre-emphasis
and Rx equalization in the PHY IC, and limits the FR4 traces to ~8"
rather than 12". XFP does not need these features due to the
CDR. Modern PHY chip include these features with only
incremental cost, but they were not available when XFP was defined.
The comments directly relate to the SFP+ limiting version (no
EDC), which is analogous to the XFP. With EDC, the comments still apply,
and additional benefits are available.
2) While a reduced-reach 10G PMD might reduce
costs, it's a retreating approach that requires the customer to purchase
higher-cost transceivers to fill in the reach gap, e.g. for reaches between 100m
and 300m.
I completely agree that
this is a retreating approach that is not a preferred solution if it can be
avoided, especially if all that is required is a simple (low cost and power) EDC
function built into the receiver's TIA.
JJ - Check. EDC functionality however is not in the receiver's TIA, but
on the PHY chip (better yet!). The TIA simply needs a linear
response.
3) A
reduced operating temperature range offers immediate cost savings for some
customers without compromising reach and without any new standards
specifications.
I do not think that
the 802.3 standard specifies operating temperature range. If so, this
improvement is available without violation of the 10GBASE-S spec. But then
there is the market requirement on temp range to consider, which can be just as
imposing as the standards specs. This leads back to the questions of item
1.
JJ - That's why it involves no
new standards specifications and also why only "some" customers are able to
enjoy this benefit.
4) For QSFP,. Here again, EDC offers great advantage,
and ignoring it would be a mistake. But crosstalk introduces module-level
limitations that might motivate reach reduction or other modification to the
PMD.
The crosstalk in a transceiver
is another source of jitter. I accept that the crosstalk in a single lane
transceiver is likely to be easier to mitigate than that in a multi-lane
transceiver that shares a common housing/circuit board between the transmit and
receive functions. The degree of added impairment is the issue, and whether the
jitter impairment causes a reduction in reach or other parameter trade-offs will
need to be sorted out during the setting of specifications. But if EDC and
reduced temp range are means to lower cost for SFP+, then they will be as well
for QSFP. I think this may need to be sorted out in the lab as companies
design these components into their test fixtures and systems. That is why
I encourage those with experience in this area to afford us the benefit of that
experience. Existence proof is a powerful argument.
JJ - Of course EDC and reduced temp range
benefit SFP+ and QSFP (and anything else) about equally, hence my comment
on EDC. For a parallel
module at 10G/ch, crosstalk and power variation add to the difficulty and
motivate some relief elsewhere. That is why although I'm fine with a 300m
reach for 10G serial, I support a shorter reach objective for 10G
parallel without EDC. Adding EDC provides a tradeoff between further spec
relaxation and increased reach.
5) Comparing costs, the SFP+ will be lower than QSFP for the
foreseeable future (per lane for the same spec).
Does this claim rely on volumes favoring SFP+? From
what I can tell, the intrinsic costs favor QSFP relative to 4xSFP+. If you
disagree with this, please provide the particulars of where we differ by
addressing the constituent comparisons in kolesar_01_0507.
JJ - This claim is based on the reality
of present SFP+ costs and lack of any visible path for QSFP to reach parity. Making a
cost comparison for equal volumes is irrelevant when the reality is that one
module will continue to have far higher volumes than the other - again for the
forseeable future. Before there is any 40G Ethernet market, the tsunami of
8G Fibre-Channel, utilizing 10G technology, will drive down the costs for
the serial ICs. The balance of TOSA/ROSA costs between 4xSFP+ and
QSFP is reversed on your chart. I think you underestimate the impact
of product maturity on TOSA/ROSA packaging costs as well. Also in the
4xSFP+, the PCB and Pkg costs are too high.
Thanks for helping to
increase understanding of these issues.
Regards,
Paul Kolesar
CommScope Inc.
Enterprise®
Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone:
972.792.3155
Fax: 972.792.3111
eMail:
pkolesar@commscope.com
| Jack Jewell
<Jack.Jewell@PICOLIGHT.COM>
06/27/2007 11:41 AM
|
Please respond
to
Jack Jewell
<Jack.Jewell@PICOLIGHT.COM> |
|
|
To
| STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| Re: [HSSG] The
List |
|
Input from a transceiver vendor with experience and
interest in both serial and parallel modules:
First, SFP+ achieves
the 300m SR objective with similar ease as XFP. While a reduced-reach 10G
PMD might reduce costs, it's a retreating approach that requires the customer to
purchase higher-cost transceivers to fill in the reach gap, e.g. for reaches
between 100m and 300m.. A reduced operating temperature range offers
immediate cost savings for some customers without compromising reach and without
any new standards specifications. Use of a linear receiver and EDC and
relaxed Tx specs can also achieve the 300m reach at reduced cost. For this
application, the amount of compensation required is far less than what is
required for LRM. EDC is becoming widely available, to the point of being
a standard feature of PHY ICs, so the cost of this EDC is becoming
insignificant. Forward-looking standards efforts will achieve their full
impact by making use of EDC.
For QSFP,. Here again, EDC offers great
advantage, and ignoring it would be a mistake. But crosstalk introduces
module-level limitations that might motivate reach reduction or other
modification to the PMD.
Comparing costs, the SFP+ will be lower than QSFP
for the forseeable future (per lane for the same spec). The only advantage
of QSFP over SFP+ is density and possibly simpler cabling. However, a
12-channel parallel module pair, e.g. SNAP12, offers greater density than QSFP
and 2.5-3X the bandwidth at <2X the cost.
Jack
From: Dove, Dan [mailto:dan.dove@HP.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:32 AM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG] The
List
Paul,
Regarding SFP+, I am very familiar with the technology and
have been tracking the SFF-8431 development. The architecture re-distribution of
cost that SFP+ offers will have a substantial impact on cost, especially when
combined with the higher density we can achieve with smaller geometry ASICs and
multiport PHYs that will come with it.
As for QSFP, I am less familiar with
whether or not it will provide a cost improvement over SFP+ or be capable of
meeting the existing SR spec. This is something for the QSFP experts to
consider, but like I said, a shorter 10G PMD might be the avenue to take rather
than an identity challenged 40G spec.
Regarding LAG, my conversation with HP
Server architects indicates there are a number of avenues for improvement of LAG
under development.
I cited these areas in my earlier message and would appreciate
them being addressed rather than ignored.
Dan
From: Paul Kolesar
[mailto:PKOLESAR@SYSTIMAX.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:04
AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG]
The List
Dan,
I
can't tell how successfully SFP+ and QSFP will be at meeting the existing
10GBASE-S spec. If they can, a new shorter distance 10G PMD would not be
of value. If they can't, then a new PMD spec may be worth while.
Those attempting to implement these lower cost platforms need to weigh in
to provide guidance. In the event that either the QSFP and/or SFP+ can
meet 10GBASE-S specs in multiple vendor's platforms, or that a new shorter
distance spec is developed that allows lower cost, the performance issues of LAG
will remain. I believe Howard's presentations on LAG have indicated that
improving LAG would not be without compromise, leading me to conclude that,
however improved, LAG performance could not become equivalent to a 40G pipe.
Developing a 40G spec would ensure a solution that simultaneously
addresses these cost and performance issues.
Regards,
Paul Kolesar
CommScope
Inc.
Enterprise® Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX
75082
Phone: 972.792.3155
Fax:
972.792.3111
eMail: pkolesar@commscope.com
| "Dove, Dan"
<dan.dove@HP.COM>
06/26/2007 09:24 PM
|
Please respond
to
"Dove, Dan"
<dan.dove@HP.COM> |
|
|
To
| STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| Re: [HSSG] The
List |
|
Hi
Paul,
Good
points. I was not really expecting to see a significant cost differential at the
PMD although its a good argument that a 100m PMD would be less expensive. If
this is the case, why not do another 10G PMD focused on lowering the cost of
server interconnect? I believe that would be a smaller project and have a much
less significant impact on 100G development.
Thanks,
Dan
From: Paul Kolesar
[mailto:PKOLESAR@SYSTIMAX.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:16
PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG]
The List
Dan,
thanks for your detailed thoughts and proposals. I appreciate
the points you made regarding the volume effect of 10G components on the cost
comparison. The presentation I submitted for the May interim looked at the
intrinsic cost factors and did not attempt to include volume in the equation.
But volume certainly can be a significant factor. Your suggestion to
look into its impact when comparing 4x10G LAG to 40G is reasonable, but
complicated at the PMD level. As my May presentation shows there are a few
ways to implement LAG on MMF. One uses the XFP, another the SFP+, still
another the QSFP. Today the XFP is shipping to the 10GBASE-S spec, and
supports 300m transmission. Designs using SFP+ and QSFP will be more
challenged to meet this spec due to jitter, so it remains to be seen how
successfully these lower cost form factors can substitute for the XFP in
10GBASE-S compliant LAG. However, a reduced distance requirement, such as
that stated in the HSSG objectives, would greatly improve the chances that QSFP
will suffice for "40GBASE-S". So while volume is important, these
unanswered questions on suitability make it impossible from my vantage point to
determine how the volumes for 10GBASE-S will be divided among XFP, SFP+, and
QSFP. And the effects of volume on production costs are better left to
those who manufacture the devices. Perhaps individuals with such insights
will offer some scenarios.
Regards,
Paul Kolesar
CommScope
Inc.
Enterprise® Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX
75082
Phone: 972.792.3155
Fax:
972.792.3111
eMail: pkolesar@commscope.com
| "Dove, Dan"
<dan.dove@HP.COM>
06/26/2007 02:45 PM
|
Please respond
to
"Dove, Dan"
<dan.dove@HP.COM> |
|
|
To
| STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| Re: [HSSG] The
List |
|
My fellow colleagues ,
Last week I sent out
a list of items that I felt need to be addressed to ensure that a 40G PAR would
be justified. At a subsequent EA teleconference intended to build concensus in
the HSSG, I offered to review the presentations made in support of 40G Economic
Feasibility and comparing 40G vs 4x10 LAG performance to ensure that I was not
being too harsh in my consideration of the material that was
presented.
Over the
weekend, I reviewed every presentation I could find on these subjects so that I
could be comfortable that I was not being unfair in my concerns. Fortunately, it
was not a huge task as there are not that many to review.
After doing so, I found myself
less convinced in the validity of some presentations that were made. This
statement is not made to criticize my colleagues, but to honor the concept of
peer review which requires that we review and criticize, otherwise we might as
well just upload them to a server and forget about them.
Specifically, I disagreed with cost
arguments made on the assumption that 10G cost remains a constant, when in fact
I anticipate substantial reductions in 10G cost over the next few years at a
rate much faster than today due to a few factors;
1) Higher density/lower cost optical form
factors (SFP+) allowing better utilization of switch infrastructural cost and
QSFP for NICs.
2) Smaller
geometry CMOS allowing higher port densities to work in synergy with PMD cost
reductions.
3)
Integration of XFI / SFI interfaces directly into ASICs or multi-port PHYs
driving 10G cost further downward.
4) Higher volumes / commoditization of 10G driving cost down much
faster than the current trajectory.
While 40G can leverage some of these elements, it cannot
leverage the volume that feeds the downward cost spiral. So in 4 years, a 40G
switch port cost is going to be based on low-volume, freshly designed and
un-amortized silicon used primarily for server interconnect, whereas a 10G port
cost will be based on amortized, high-volume silicon being used in a huge array
of applications. Having different trajectories, the relative cost for 40G will
be higher than presented. This is true for 100G as well, but who is arguing a
need for 100G based on cost? It is bandwidth that drives 100G
demand.
In addition,
I found presentations claiming that LAG was insufficient to address server I/O
bandwidth needs, yet those presentations failed to address upcoming technology
enhancements like TRILL and its impact combined with I/O Virtualization, perhaps
with a physical manifestation of QSFP and MPO optics which I believe can lead to
graceful performance scaling for servers that does not demand an intermediate
IEEE standard. In other words, activities and technologies are advancing which
will parse server network access into multiple conversations that can then be
put onto a LAG group with much higher than presented performance
levels.
Now, I
realize that I am swimming upstream here by asking that the proponents for "40G
now" to complete a task that took the 100G proponents almost a year to
accomplish, in less than 6 months, but then I am not asking them to do that.
My first choice, the one I proposed in Geneva, was that we move 100G
forward (because it is DONE) and that we continue to work on 40G (until it is
done).
This appears
to be a minority position because apparently some people will accept an unproven
40G proposal rather than risk 100G. Others think that 40G is proven sufficiently
and are demanding "40G now" or they will not allow a 100G PAR to go forward.
Those in the latter camp must either be unconvinced of my concerns, or they
think my concerns are insufficient to justify any further work being done to
justify a 40G project.
I can accept differences of opinion.
What I cannot do, however, is pretend
that these issues do not exist, or that the work we would have to spend getting
a 40G standard done is not going to delay the much needed 100G aggregation
solution our customers demand. I cannot ignore what I perceive as holes in the
40G presentations.
So, to provide a little more direction to my colleagues in the "40G
now or the HSSG stalls" crowd, I am asking you to include relative cost
trajectories in your analysis of 40G vs 10G cost models, and to include
technology enhancements to LAG (TRILL, I/O Virtualization, QSFP, MPO) in your
performance analysis.
If you feel that this is unnecessary, I am requesting that you
communicate this position to me as soon as possible so that I can prepare a
presentation on these areas of concern for the July meeting.
Respectfully,
Dan Dove
Dove Networking Solutions - Serving ProCurve Networking by
HP