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