Atsushi,
First, let me say that the email below is
intended to make sure that this group does not stray in a direction that would
ultimately lead to the violation of IEEE-SA Antitrust and Competition Policy. As
chair, I am remaining neutral on the TF’s technical decisions.
Regardless of the decision that this body
makes, the market may demand that both solutions are developed anyway.
Please
note in the following document from the IEEE, “Promoting Competition and
Innovation:
What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association’s
Antitrust and Competition Policy,” which may be found at http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf.
Please note the following statement:
“For example,
selecting one technology for inclusion in a standard is lawful, but an
agreement to prohibit standards
participants (or implementers) from
implementing a competing standard or rival technology would be unlawful –
although as a practical matter, a successful standard may lawfully achieve this
result through the workings of the market.”
As I have phrased it to the Task
Force, the Task Force makes decisions about what it is going to do, it does not
make decisions about what it is not going to do.
Regardless of the decision that this
Task Force makes, it is very easy to envision both implementations getting
developed in the industry. Given the need stated by CWDM supporters for a
near term solution, it is easy to envision an industry effort happening if the
TF goes serial. It is just as easy to envision a new CFI happening for a
serial solution if the TF chooses to go CWDM.
Also, as a point of clarification,
as I am currently looking at the presentation for another discussion, you may
wish to refer to Flatman_01_0108 (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ba/public/jan08/flatman_01_0108.pdf),
which is a survey of data centers that Alan Flatman did that shows 40G being
deployed in access-to-distribution links in 2010.
Regards,
John
From: Atsushi Takai
[mailto:atsushi.takai@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008
2:26 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion
on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
I agree that DC application is cost
sensitive.
As many people agreed in some presentations
at meeting, CWDM will be cheaper at near term and serial will became cheaper in
maybe 2011 or beyond.
That means transceiver supplier have to
develop CWDM in 2009 timeframe and serial in 2010 or 11.
This development will cost much. And I do
not think CWDM cost in 2009 or 2010 will be cheaper than 4x10G.
Even more DC application users can choose
8x10G CWDM that has more bandwidth.
I do not think CWDM has superior merit for
DC application.
Also I think there was a presentation that
said that DC will start install 40G in 2015 or beyond.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Atsushi Takai
Marketing Division, Opnext Japan, Inc
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
----- Original Message -----
Sent:
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:08 AM
Subject:
Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
John,
I agree some reflector discussion would be helpful on this
topic.
I characterize the discussion I heard around the choice of
PMD as really boiling down to a debate on the primary applications and the
drivers for those applications.
The original justification for adding the 40G SMF objective
was primarily based on the application of Data Center
inter-switch links. There was also other applications such as for
use in interconnecting to OTN equipment which is good for BMP. In both
cases lower cost solutions are preferential. The debate appears to
revolve around what other assumptions there are around market timing,
technology risks, cost projections and operational issues etc.
To me the simple view is that to achieve low cost, you need
higher volume. Higher volume is achieved by the having a solution that
addresses the largest primary application and as many others as possible.
I am assuming that the primary application is still the DC.
Since DC applications are inherently much more sensitive to
cost, a near term low cost solution is needed or else the application will
likely not be adopted. In this case, if 40G SMF PMD is uneconomical in
the near term then the DC users will likely stay with nx10G as long as possible
and then presumably assess the 40G/100G economics at some later date.
The argument for adopting serial technology now is that the
potential higher volume of the DC application will trigger the necessary
development investments now and drive the cost of that technology down so we
will ultimately get it to the low cost solutions needed. My concern is
that the timing and cost windows needed for the DC application do no fit with
that model and we would end up with little adoption in that market and end up
with a lower volume, higher cost PMD which is what we would all like to avoid.
Mark
From: John
DAmbrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:53
PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3BA] Discussion on
40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Dear Task Force Members,
Per Motion #9 from July, the editorial team is working on
creating a “a draft based on
adopted baseline proposals for circulation prior to the September 2008 interim
meeting
.” Unfortunately, at the July
meeting the Task Force did not reach consensus on a baseline proposal to
satisfy the 40G over => 10km SMF objective. Therefore, in September we need to reach
closure on this issue.
With that said, I would like to strongly
recommend that the TF make use of the reflector to discuss the various issues
of debate that have been going on, both during the meetings and during offline
discussions.
Let’s use the next several weeks to
have meaningful debate so we can reach consensus at the September meeting.
Regards,
John D’Ambrosia
Chair, IEEE P802.3ba Task Force