[802.3BA] Fwd: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for => 10 km SMF
All,
One WORD is amended according to Chair's suggestion.
Regards,
Hideki Isono
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008
20:35:48 +0900
To: Atsushi Takai <atsushi.takai@xxxxxxxxxx>,
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Hideki Isono <isono@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Takai-san, All,
Below table shows the initial 10G EML-TOSA cost reduction history.
Relative Cost Qty(k
pcs.)
2002 1.00
7.2
2003
0.40
13.5
2004
0.28
70.0
Seeing this table, we found that we experienced the drastic cost
reduction of 10G EML-TOSA
from 2002 to 2004, whose number is about 70% down.
Current 40G-EML TOSA (1.5um) cost is 18x 10G LR TOSA @2010.
If the x10 volume increase is assumed from 2008 to 2010, 40G EML
TOSA cost will be reduced to
18 x0.3= 5.4, which means our estimation in Denver is a feasible
range.
And also the test cost of 1.3um is cheaper than that of 1.55um because of
the non-necessity
of dispersion tolerance test.
The other point emphasized here is that 40G VSR discussed in this
reflector
is very much different from the 40GE Serial proposed here. (SerDes
difference, Driver integration
difference, form factor difference and so on.).
These differences are well considered in our current 40G Serial
estimation.
(trvasso_02_0708)
Regards,
Hideki Isono
At 12:12 08/08/08 +0900, Atsushi Takai wrote:
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
Chris
I hope you are talking of historical
cost reduction of 10G.
Gary's e-mail reminded me the early
stage of 10G.
I will investigate the cost reduction of
10G.
All
Does someone show the 10G cost down at
early stage?
Unfortunately I am almost in summer vacation and I do not have data in my
PC.
I remember the cost down was more than
we expected and volume independent.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Atsushi Takai
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Chris Cole
- To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:25 AM
- Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
- Hello Takai-san,
-
- As confirmed in your latest email, we have now distilled the two key
points of disagreement about future 40GE-Serial cost.
-
- 1)
The Serial proponents
project an 8x cost reduction for GPPO IF based 40G Modules in two years
(by 2010) if 40GE-Serial is adopted as an IEEE standard because this will
increase the 40G-Serial volume by 10x to 20x, triggering a large cost
reduction investment for example in ICs.
- The opponents do not foresee such an 8x cost occurring based on a 10x
to 20x volume increase. A more reasonable cost decrease is 2x to 3x,
based on historical trends and past experience with similar volume
increases.
- 2)
The Serial proponents
project another 1.3x cost reduction by going from GPPO IF based to
GPPO-less IF based modules, with high volume (>100K) shipment feasible
in 2010.
- The opponents generally agree with the 1.3x cost reduction, but see a
much longer period then 2 years (more like 5 to 8 years) to bring this
difficult technology to the market.
-
- There is general agreement on 40GE-CWDM cost reduction timeline, as
this is closely tied to 10GE cost.
-
- Further discussion is unlikely to change the minds of the proponents
on either side of the debate. However the key points are now clearly laid
out for those that are still in the process of making a decision.
-
- Chris
-
- From: Atsushi Takai
[mailto:atsushi.takai@xxxxxxxxxx]
- Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:36 PM
- To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
-
- Chris
-
- > A general rule is that a 10x increase in volume results in 2x
drop in cost.
-
- > Therefore, it is very hard to see how the 8x cost drop in two
years of GPPO IF based 40G module can be justified by the projected 10x
to 20x volume increase.
- As I pointed that the biggest current cost eater is Si and cumulative
volume is not enough to compensate investment.
- If IC vendor get volume that will be enough for investment, the IC
cost will be reduced rapidly.
-
- As you know, the 40G market is growing rapidly and we are expecting
the break point sooner.
- This drop may significant bigger than 2x per 10x
volume.
-
- =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
- Atsushi Takai
- =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Chris Cole
- To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:50 AM
- Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
-
- Hello Isono-san,
-
- Thank you for clarifying which set of cost numbers we should use for
discussion.
-
- Your email highlights a confusing point in the traverso_02_0708
presentation. The conclusion for 2010 Serial (at 120K volume) is 1 x CWDM
2010 cost for GPPO IF, and 0.78 x CWDM 2010 cost for PCB (GPPO-less) IF.
The conclusion for 2010 CWDM is 6 x 10GE LR 2010 cost.
-
- Lightcounting data (see cole_04_708) gives the 2008 40G VSR module
cost as 48 x 10GE LR 2010 cost (= 40 x 10GE 2008 LR cost.)
-
- This means that there is an 8x reduction in cost from 2008 to 2010
for GPPO IF based module, and an additional 1.3x (10x total) cost
reduction for GPPO-less IF based module. Page 16 of traverso_02_0708,
identifies main drivers for this drop in Serial 2010 cost:
-
- -
Optics packaging
- -
4:1 SerDes instead of16:1 SerDes
- -
Low cost SerDespackaging
- -
Low cost RF interconnect
- -
Higher Volume
-
- There is an in-depth discussion of low cost GPPO-less IF packagingand interconnect technology on pages 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of thepresentation, which supports three of the above bullets. However, thisaddresses the 1.3x (of the 10x total) cost reduction factor since itapplies to GPPO-less IF.
-
- This leaves two other above bullets to account for majority of the 8xcost drop in two years.
-
- There is no specific discussion in the presentation of why a 4:1SerDes is cheaper then a 16:1 SerDes, although comments were made duringQ&A in Denver that the I/O count is reduced. Since there is generalagreement that SerDes die cost is a small fraction of the overall cost,this presumably is a minor component of the 8x cost drop.
-
- This leaves the Higher Volume bullet to account for the majority ofthe 8x cost drop in two years, with page 13 giving the volume assumptionas 120K in 2010. In his 8/2/08 email, Takai-san estimated the cumulative40G shipment as 10K. This gives a volume increase of 10x to 20x,depending on exact annual assumptions.
-
- A general rule is that a 10x increase in volume results in 2x drop incost.
-
- Therefore, it is very hard to see how the 8x cost drop in two yearsof GPPO IF based 40G module can be justified by the projected 10x to 20xvolume increase.
- A much more reasonable conclusion is that there will be a 2x to 3xcost drop in two years, as projected in cole_08_0708, page 9, andtraverso_04_0308, page 8.
-
- Chris
-
- From: Hideki Isono
[mailto:isono@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
- Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:58 PM
- To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
-
- Alessandro-san
- Regarding the cost difference you pointed out, the background reason
isas follows.
- a) In this proposal timing, the specific 40GE volume is not
discussed,and also
- the existing technology adaptation is assumed. This is the reason
whythis estimation is too high.
- b) From this estimation, new technology such as low cost
TOSA/ROSA(XLMD) and also low cost
- SerDes package are assumed.
- As the result of these assumption, the cost becomes very close to
thelatest estimation.
- C) From this estimation, the specific volume (120K pcs for 2010)
isassumed and GPPO-less
- package is optionally introduced. We concluded that the cost is 0.78
xCWDM for GPPO-less and
- 1 x CWDM for GPPO IF.
- Estimation described in (C) is the latest and the most accurate one.
- Please refer to this document hereafter.
- Best regards,
- Hideki Isono
- Fujitsu Ltd
- At 22:01 08/08/04 -0700, Alessandro Barbieri (abarbier)wrote:
- Hi Atsushi,
- > I am afraid that to chose 40GbE CWDM will ignore data
centerapplications that is cost sensitive and may require less than
4x10Gcost.
- or
- >"We have to resolve this to achieve <2x10G
cost."
- it is not clear how you derive the conclusion that 2X is needed for
thedata center space. Is it a gut feeling or is there a
rationalexplanation?
- At least below I attempted to articulate briefly why 4X if
veryreasonable on the optics (which BTW is just a part of the total
systemcost) to ensure market success for 40G SMF and I would like to
understandif you have any specific disagreement:
- "I think ~4X the cost of 10G with *just* the benefit
ofconsolidating 4 metro fibers will work quite well.
- On top of it add the operational advantage of simplifying the networkbyreducing the dependency on LAG by a factor of 4 and one could arguethat4X on SMF is perfectly fine."
- Last I am now getting confused with this latest 2X 10G cost on top ofallthe cost projections presented on 40G serial:
- a) http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/mar08/traverso_04_0308.pdf :
- 2012 Serial still more than 1X CWDM
- b) http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/may08/jewell_02_0508.pdf:
- 2011 Serial is 1X CWDM
- c) http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/jul08/traverso_02_0708.pdf
- 2010 Serial is 0.78X CWDM
- d) Now in 07/08 the claim is 2X 10GBASE-L which is anywhere between0.5Xand 0.3X CWDM (even lower than traverso_02_0708 in 2012)
- Why the story keeps changing on serial?
- Thanks,
- Alessandro
-
- > -----Original Message-----
- > From: Atsushi Takai
[mailto:atsushi.takai@xxxxxxxxxx]
- > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 5:48 PM
- > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- > Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
- >
- > Team
- >
- > First of all, in case of CWDM, volume will never resolve the
issue.
- > The cost will be always 4x10G+WDM.
- > The cost will go down according to 10G.
- >
- > I agree with Chris's comment that integration will not
- > resolve the cost issue in case of 40GbE CWDM.
- > We also had experiences of such technologies and found
difficulties.
- > Thus in case of 40GbE CWDM, The cost seems 4x10G+(WDM).
- >
- > ((100GbE WDM is different.
- > In case of 100GbE WDM, the cost will be considered almost
4x25G+(WDM).
- > Thus to achieve <10x10G cost is to achieve 25G cost to be
- > closer to 10G.
- > We believe we can achieve it.))
- >
- > It seems that CWDM has no way to achieve 4x10G and may be 6x
- > with reasonable estimation.
- > I am afraid that to chose 40GbE CWDM will ignore data center
- > applications that is cost sensitive and may require less than
- > 4x10G cost.
- >
- > I agree that even 4x10G is much cheaper than current cost of
- > 40G 2km serial.
- > But it is not the discussion point.
- >
- > In case of serial, volume and well-known technology will
- > resolve the cost issue.
- > (1) Today's market is small, may be < 10K/year.
- >
I believe team confirmed market.
- >
Also carrier started to install 40Gbit/s transport
- > systems recently.
- >
We are receiving 40Gbit/s Infinibandthat is another market.
- >
Volume pulls the investment for thetechnology and it is
- > happening.
- > (2) Optical device companies that I discussed have no concern
- > on technology.
- >
Especially this is 1310-nm transmission.
- >
(I hope you understand this is very important)
- > (3) IC cost is always related volume to compensate investment.
- > (4) Thus only big challenging technology is interconnection
- > technology.
- >
We have to resolve this to achieve<2x10G cost.
- >
This is the interconnection betweendriver to Laser module
- >
with the length of about 1 inch orless
- >
that 40G signal go from driver chip tolaser chip.
- >
We have resolution today semi-ridgedcoaxial cable.
- >
However we need low cost alternativeto achieve such low cost.
- >
We may overcome using customizeddesign with IC and module.
- >
However we need universal design toreduce cost and wide usage.
- >
Anyway I am optimistic for this.
- >
- > I believe we have to choose serial.
- >
- >
- > =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
- > Atsushi Takai
- > Marketing Division, Opnext Japan, Inc
- >
- > =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
- > ----- Original Message -----
- > From: "Alessandro Barbieri (abarbier)"
<abarbier@xxxxxxxxx>
- > To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:00 AM
- > Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
- >
- >
- > Hi Frank,
- > I have a couple of brief of comments inline...
- >
- > > Steve;
- > >
- > > I share with your viewpoint, but still have similar
concerns,
- > > so put us in the category of "undecided"
regardingthis after
- > > listening to customers from either datacom or telecomside.
- > >
- > > The problem is if neither 40g serial or 4x10 CWDM
canprovide
- > > a cost trend more favorable than 4x individual 10ge, then
- > > 40gbe will be hard to take off, everyone may stick to
install
- >
- > I think ~4X the cost of 10G with *just* the benefit of
- > consolidating 4 metro
- > fibers will work quite well.
- > On top of it add the operational advantage of simplifying the
- > network by
- > reducing the dependency on LAG by a factor of 4 and one could
- > argue that 4X
- > on SMF is perfectly fine.
- >
- > > 10ge a bit longer, especially for data centers (which is
more
- > > cost sensitive), so 40gbe SMF may eventually unable to
build
- > > up significant volume. Think about the 10gbe volume
- > > difference regarding LX4 vs. 10ge serial.
- >
- > Comparing the volumes of optics destined to different
- > applications is not an
- > apple-to-apple comparison. Even though LX4 works on SMF, I
- > believe less than
- > 5% use it for that purpose.
- >
- > Thanks,
- > Alessandro
- >
- >
- > > 4x10g CWDM option may provide a competitive cost point from
- > > day one, are we underestimating the LX4 mfg issues in terms
- > > of photonics integrated circuits to drive further cost
down?
- > >
- > > Are we too optimistic on 40g innovation for cost reduction
- > > (obviously maybe lengthy and expensive development) keeping
- > > in mind close to limits of current electronics?
- > >
- > > Feel like both 4x10g CWDM and 40ge serial face
"breakthrough"
- > > ahead. Without any reasonable/realistic consensus with
these
- > > "hard" data, seems there would be difficult for
thegroup to
- > > reach the decision unanimously.
- > >
- > > The likely scenarios is if both 40g serial or 4x10 CWDM
- > > cannot be built more cost-effectively than 4x individual
- > > 10ge, 40ge SMF will have very limited time window, then
- > > people will escape it and jump straight to 100GE.
- > >
- > > My 1 cent.
- > > Frank
- > >
- > > -----Original Message-----
- > > From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)
- > >
[mailto:sjtrowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
- > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 8:50 AM
- > > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- > > Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
- > >
- > > Hi Mori-san and others,
- > > It goes without saying that the cost of a 40G 4x10G CWDM
- > > transceiver will not over the long term fall below 4x the
- > > cost of a 10G transceiver, but for a very trivial reason:
Any
- > > cost reduction that results from development or volumes of40
- > > GbE will also reduce the cost of a quad 10G transceiver. So
- > > this is a meaningless comparison and not helpful for the
- > > decision. The decision needs to be made based on how the
- > > costs of 4x10G CWDM and serial 40G compare to each other,not
- > > how they compare to the cost of 10G. 40G serial technology
- > > has been in the market for ~6 years, and is still
stubbornly
- > > expensive. Costs are finally decreasing somewhat, but the
gap
- > > is not being closed vs. 10G because the cost of 10G is
- > > decreasing even faster than the cost of 40G.
- > > Regards,
- > > Steve
- > >
- > > -----Original Message-----
- > > From: Kazuyuki Mori
[mailto:mori.kazuyuki-1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
- > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 10:21 PM
- > > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- > > Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
- > >
- > > TF members,
- > >
- > > I'm Kazuyuki Mori, Fujitsu Labs. I support 40G Serial and I
- > > basically agree with Takai-san regarding below points.
- > >
- > > (1) Cost
- > > My
understanding is that, generally speaking, the final
- > > cost target for 40G optical transceiver should be 2 -3
times
- > > of 10G transceivers. In order to achieve this target , I
- > > again and again discussed the cost reduction approaches
with
- > > TOSA/ROSA suppliers, IC suppliers, optical module suppliers
- > > and our laboratory experts. In case of CWDM, I haven't
found
- > > any technical solution to achieve this target (<x4 cost
of
- > > 10G transceiver), and there has been no presentations in
IEEE
- > > to show this cost reduction approaches until now. On the
- > > other hand, 40G serial is feasible to achieve this targetas
- > > shown in traverso_02_0708.
- > > I wonderthat 40G transceiver cost will remain more than 4
- > > times of 10G in future if once CWDM solution is authorized.
- > >
- > > (2) Size
- > > I think
the size reduction is another big challenging
- > > target in CWDM as Chris already agreed in recent dialogues.
- > > Some people say that monolithic DFB array enables high
- > > density package solution, but CWDM option is almost
- > > impossible to be realized because the same active layerofLD
- > > cannot be applied. Also the hybrid integration usingPLCwith
- > > an integrated AWG MUX is sometimes picked up, but itisquite
- > > challenging due to high insertion loss of AWG caused by
- > > intrinsic Gaussian profile, and also due to AWG temperature
- > > dependence. In my perspective as a researcher, optical
- > > integration approach in 40G CWDM has some intrinsic
problems
- > > and leads the cost increase.
- > > Pleaseremember that this isn't the case of Vcsel array,
- > > but the case of DFBs and also with optical mux.
- > >
- > > (3) Power
- > > Stevepointed out that '40G SerDes are very power hungry',
- > > but this is not correct. Current SerDes is for 16:1 and1:16,
- > > however 4:1 and 1:4 SerDes
- > > should be asuumed
in We need to compare
using 4:1 and 1:4
- > > SerDes. In our
- > > estimation, 2W is possible by deleting unnecessary circuits
- > > from today's SerDes even when SiGe was used.
- > >
- > > Kazuyuki Mori
- > >
- > > ----- Original Message -----
- > > From: "Atsushi Takai"
<atsushi.takai@xxxxxxxxxx>
- > > To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 12:34 PM
- > > Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
- > >
- > >
- > > > Jeff
- > > >
- > > > I do not know your background.
- > > > However I found, in your comment below, you
misunderstood
- > > the optical
- > > > transmission technologies.
- > > > I do not want to argue line by line.
- > > >
- > > > Just I would like to point one sentence:
- > > > "The biggest downside of 40G serial, seems to be
the
- > > physics problem of
- > > > PMD.".
- > > > This is not true for 10km SMF.
- > > > The 40Gbit/s PMD was a technical challenge in several
years
- > > ago but now it
- > > > is not downside.
- > > > Even, we are discussing 1310-nm devices while current
- > > module includes
- > > > 1550-nm devices.
- > > > (We can neglect dispersion issue in case of 1310nm
transmission)
- > > >
- > > > The biggest cost in current serial module is silicon
chip
- > > that is much
- > > > more
- > > > volume sensitive.
- > > > I hope you know the accumulative shipment of 40Gbt/s
client
- > > module is
- > > > around
- > > > 10K peaces or such range.