Hi
Gourgen,
Some numbers might help
clarify what close to 0 means.
For 2008, Lightcounting
gives a shipment number of approximately 30,000 for 10GE-LRM (and for 10GE-LX4
it’s about 60,000.) So close to 0 would apply if we were rounding to the nearest
100K. As an aside, 10GE-LRM supports 220m of MMF, not
300m.
300m of OM3 is
supported by 10GE-SR, which Lightcounting gives as approximately 400,000 in
2008, so that would be close to 0 if we rounding to the nearest 1M.
Another interesting
sideline in looking at these numbers is that 2 years after the 10GE-LRM standard
was adopted in 2006, despite the huge investment being made in 10GE-LRM
development, and despite very little new investment being made in 10GE-LX4, the
10GE CWDM equivalent (i.e. 10GE-LX4, 4x3G) is chugging along at 2x the volume of
the 10GE Serial solution that was adopted to replace
it.
This should put some
dim on hopes that very low cost 40GE Serial technology can be developed from
scratch in two years and ship in volume when the 40GE standard is adopted in
2010.
Chris
From: Gourgen
Oganessyan [mailto:gourgen@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:02
PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] XR ad hoc Phone
Conference Notice
Petar,
Well, sadly that’s what
has been happening in the 10G world, people are forced to amortize the cost of
300m reach (LRM), while in reality the number of people who need 300m is close
to 0.
That’s why I am
strongly in support of your approach of keeping the 100m objective as primary
goal.
Frank, OM4 can add as
much cost as it wants to, the beauty is the added cost goes directly where it’s
needed, which is the longer links. Alternatives force higher cost/higher power
consumption on all ports regardless of whether it’s needed there or not.
Gourgen
Oganessyan
Quellan
Inc.
Phone: (630)-802-0574
(cell)
Fax: (630)-364-5724
e-mail:
gourgen@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: Petar
Pepeljugoski [mailto:petarp@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:51
PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] XR ad hoc Phone
Conference Notice
Frank,
If I interpret correctly, you are
saying that all users should amortize the cost of very few who need extended
reach.
We need to be careful how we proceed
here - we should not repeat the mistakes of the past if we want successful
standard.
Regards,
Peter
Petar
Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218 (mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road,
Rte. 134 (shipping)
Yorktown
Heights, NY 10598
e-mail:
petarp@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax:
(914)-945-4134
|
From:
|
Frank Chang
<ychang@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To:
|
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
Date:
|
07/09/2008 10:29
PM |
|
Subject:
|
Re: [802.3BA] XR ad hoc Phone
Conference Notice |
Hi
Jeff;
Thanks for your
comment. You missed one critical point that there is cost increase from OM3 to
OM4. If you take ribbon cable cost in perspective, OM4 option is possibly the
largest of the 4 options.
Besides, the use of OM4
requires to tighten TX specs which impact TX yield, so you are actually
compromising the primary goal.
Frank
From: Jeff Maki
[mailto:jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:02
PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] XR ad hoc Phone
Conference Notice
Dear MMF XR Ad Hoc Committee
Members,
I believe
our current objective of “at least 100 meters on OM3 MMF” should remain as a
primary goal, the baseline. Support for any form of extended reach should
be considered only if it does not compromise this primary goal. A single
PMD for all reach objectives is indeed a good starting premise; however, it
should not be paramount. In the following lists are factors, enhancements,
or approaches I would like to put forward as acceptable and not acceptable for
obtaining extended reach.
Not
Acceptable:
1. Cost increase for the baseline
PMD (optic) in order to obtain greater than 100-meter reach
2.
EDC on the system/host board in any case
3. CDR on the
system/host board as part of the baseline solution
4. EDC in
the baseline PMD (optic)
5. CDR in the baseline PMD (optic)
Acceptable:
1. Use of
OM4 fiber
2. Process maturity that yields
longer reach with no cost increase
In
summary, we should not burden the baseline solution with cost increases to meet
the needs of an extended-reach solution.
Sincerely,
Jeffery
Maki
————————————————
Jeffery J. Maki, Ph.D.
Principal Optical
Engineer
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 North Mathilda
Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206
Voice
+1-408-936-8575
FAX +1-408-936-3025
www.juniper.net
jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx
————————————————