Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
Dan,
customers will have two solutions for copper as well as OM-3 fiber. And
I can't see why having two solutions for SMF too would make things any
different.
How will they pick one? Based on a tradeoff of cost and need. The
decision to end users will be absolutely simplified by the economics at
work here: it has been pointed out that a 100G transceiver on SMF could
cost ~8-12x 40G SMF
(http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/AdHoc/40GSMF/cole_40_02_0208.pdf) or
~40-50X 10GBASE-LR in 2010
(http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/AdHoc/40GSMF/carter_40_01_0208.pdf).
Users who *need* the bandwidth are not going to stop at 40G, those who
*don't need* the bandwidth (Tier2/3) will not adopt 100G SMF anyway, but
they would find 40G a better balance between cost and need.
> we would see that
> customer base split between 40G and 100G with very small
> incremental volume gained by the addition of 40G.
40G is absolutely incremental as it is a path to upgrade 10G links for
the more cost driven part of the market. Hadn't we had 40G, most users
would have continued happily with nx10G links.
The argument that users will get confused by two solutions is a non
issue IMHO. The different economics of 40G SMF and 100G SMF will drive
behaviors very clearly.
Alessandro
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dove, Dan [mailto:dan.dove@HP.COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:30 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
>
> Howard,
>
> You said " Customers tend to be pretty smart people. They
> know what they need, they know how to calculate
> cost/performance ratios, and they know how to pick the right
> data rate for each of the links in their networks." and I
> fully agree with you, but your point does not address the
> fact that customers for 100G 10km LANs would find themselves
> with two solutions now rather than one. These two solutions
> would be sufficiently similar in performance, and perhaps a
> significant difference in cost, that we would see that
> customer base split between 40G and 100G with very small
> incremental volume gained by the addition of 40G.
>
> If this is true, we have doubled the amount of work to yield
> a fractional increase in market growth.
>
> In addition, those customers who go for the 40G solution
> because its available sooner or lower in cost will find
> themselves quickly in a state where they need 100G, thus they
> have bought a technology without the legs that are normally
> desired for backbone links.
>
> Now, I don't think my points, by themselves, are sufficiently
> persuasive to oppose a 40G-10km standard, but wanted to put
> them onto the table. We are certainly stepping away from some
> of the supporting arguments made when 40G and 100G were
> initially approved and should re-evaluate the entire
> justification before treading too far down this path.
>
> Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:38 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
>
>
>
> The study group, the working group, and the EC all agreed
> that broad market potential had been demonstrated for both 40
> G and 100 G. The broad market potential for 100 G was based,
> in no small part, on the needs of very vocal and prominent
> individuals representing end users of the technology. These
> individuals made it clear that 40 G was not sufficient for
> their needs. I don't think that the inclusion of a new
> objective for 40 G operation on 10 km of single mode fiber
> will change their view in the slightest.
> They need 100 G, and 40 G in any form simply won't satisfy
> their needs.
>
> I think that this is well captured in the approved response
> to the broad market potential criterion.
>
> What has changed is that a new set of individuals are asking
> for 40 G on 10 km of single mode fiber because they believe
> it will satisfy their needs. They aren't contradicting the
> people who want 100 G. They are simply saying that their
> needs are different.
>
> Customers tend to be pretty smart people. They know what they
> need, they know how to calculate cost/performance ratios, and
> they know how to pick the right data rate for each of the
> links in their networks.
> We haven't had any problem with Distinct Identity over the
> last 16 years that we have been cranking up the operating
> speed of Ethernet. Customers know when to use 10 Mb/s, 100
> Mb/s, 1000 Mb/s and 10 Gb/s. They will be able to draw the
> same distinction between 40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s, regardless of
> what media types are supported.
>
> I think it would be a terrible idea to limit the link span
> for 40 G operation on single mode fiber to 2 km. Customers
> have been designing around a maximum link span of 10 km (and
> the associated channel insertion
> loss) for at least the last decade. It would be wrong to
> arbitrarily limit the span of 40 G to 2 km in an attempt to
> provide unnecessary differentiation.
>
> Howard Frazier
> Broadcom Corporation
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Booth [mailto:bbooth@AMCC.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:00 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
>
> Steve,
>
> I agree that this does change things up. 40G was positioned
> as a server interconnect, and 100G as the network
> interconnect. The overlap with an existing 100G objective
> blurs the distinct identity making it hard to differentiate
> the broad market potential for either objective.
>
> If the 40G SMF option was being targeted at a 2 km reach,
> that would make sense considering that's a typical campus
> area network. If someone then wanted to use that to do 10
> km, that would be their option and considered outside the
> scope of the standard.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Swanson, Steven E [mailto:SwansonSE@CORNING.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:08 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
>
> Howard etal,
>
> I could agree that this proposal may address what needs to
> change in our response to the Economic Feasibility criterion
> to add the 10km SMF objective at 40G. However, I think this
> change goes against the basis of the decision that we took in
> July 2007 for considering 40G in the first place, i.e.,
> segmenting the server and computing applications from the
> network aggregation applications. Now the network aggregation
> space includes two solutions - 40G and 100G. This seems to
> place a burden on us to also re-evaluate Distinct Identity
> criterion and calls into question the Broad Market Potential
> criterion. In reviewing some of the presentations leading up
> to our decision to include 40G, I note some of the concerns
> expressed then that I think are now back on the table:
>
> * "Fragmentation of R&D efforts (lack of critical mass on either
> 40G or 100G initially) - two rates will ultimately force
> component and equipment vendors to support BOTH."
> * "Requires the industry to develop 2 x MACs, 2 x PCS chips, 2 x
> PMA (serdes) chips, 2 x N PMDs"
> * "Industry confusion on "application versus rate" - Distinct
> Identity does not just mean "Is there anything else exactly
> like this?"
> but also "Is there sufficient difference between this and
> available alternatives to justify the effort?"
> * "Interoperability concerns (some vendors elect to
> implement 40G
> initially, whereas others implement 100G)"
> * "Do we now have a triple rate required (40G LAN, 40G
> WAN, 100G)
> since 40G SMF solutions already exist?"
>
> I do not have any proposed changes at this point regarding
> the BMP or DI criterion but wanted to express an opinion that
> these criterion should be re-evaluated. If others do not
> share that view, then on we go.
>
> Steve Swanson
> Corning Incorporated
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:21 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
>
> Dear members of the IEEE 802.3ba Task Force,
>
> I have reviewed our approved set of 5 Criteria responses
>
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/PAR/HSSG_5C_0707.pdf
>
> looking for any material that will need to be changed in the
> event we adopt an objective to support 40 Gb/s operation on
> 10 km of single mode fiber. In my opinion, the responses will
> remain valid and complete, with one exception.
>
> On page 6 of the above referenced file, in our response to
> the Economic Feasibility criterion, we state:
>
> Presentations indicate that for the server market and
> computing applications the optimized rate to provide
> the best balance of performance and cost is 40 Gb/s.
> For the network aggregation market and core networking
> applications, the optimized rate offering the best
> balance of performance and cost is 100 Gb/s.
>
> If we adopt a 40 Gb/s SMF objective, then this response
> should be modified along the lines of:
>
> Presentations indicate that for the server market,
> computing applications and some cost-sensitive
> aggregation applications, the optimized rate to provide
> the best balance of performance and cost is 40 Gb/s.
> For the network aggregation market and core networking
> applications, the optimized rate offering the best
> balance of performance and cost is 100 Gb/s.
>
> The change being the insertion of the words "some
> cost-sensitive aggregation applications" in the first sentence.
>
> I think that our previously approved responses for Broad
> Market Potential, Compatibility, Distinct Identity, and
> Technical Feasibility will not require any change in the
> event that we adopt an objective for 40 Gb/s operation on
> SMF. I think that the proponents of the new objective will be
> able to readily demonstrate this.
>
> If you think I have over looked something else that might
> need to be changed, please speak up, and please provide a
> proposed change.
>
> Howard Frazier
> Broadcom Corporation
>