Hello
Isono-san,
Thank you for starting to provide the details of the cost reduced
40GE-Serial proposal based on GPPO IF technology. Since this is the
approach that can realistically be delivered in 2010 as an Ethernet
solution, and is claimed to lead to 8x cost reduction, it is properly
the focus of discussion.
In your
email, you identify XLMD type TOSA and ROSA as candidates for the GPPO
IF optics. Can you provide the details of the GPPO IF based ICs that
you are proposing to use in a 40GE-Serial solution? Is there any
publically available information about 40G 4:1 SerDes ICs in a GPPO IF
package that are candidates for the 40GE 10km SMF PMD? Are there any
diagrams or photos of such 40G SerDes ICs that you could share? To
date, no information has been provided on such ICs to 802.3ba.
The only new
40GE ICs that have been presented to 802.3ba are advanced SerDes ICs in
PCB RF IF packaging (GPPO-less). There has been strong disagreement
about the feasibility of this technology for volume production in 2010.
Further, such ICs are presumably not usable with the GPPO IF based
optics, and in any case only contribute to an additional factor of 1.3x
cost reduction, so are much less relevant to the discussion.
Thank you
Chris
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.
> >
> However IEEE confirmed market of 40GbE 10km serial enough for
> >
> standardization, you can expect much lower cost with
> higher
volume.
> >
>
> >
> Also investment for 40Gbit/s transmission networks started
> >
these years,
> >
> thus
> >
> industry started invest for 40Gbit/s technologies.
> >
> You will find much activity in the industry.
> >
>
> >
> All
> >
>
> >
> I am very concerning during the meeting and e-mail discussion,
> >
> many of members may misunderstand the 40Gbit serial
> >
technology status and
> >
> activity in the industry,
> >
> and understand only the surface.
> >
> We, who has technology especially optical device
> >
technology, should be
> >
> responsible to let people understand the technology.
> >
> I will think about it.
> >
>
> >
> =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
> >
> Atsushi Takai
> >
> =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
> >
> ----- Original Message -----
> >
> From: "Jeff Meyer" <jmeyer@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 2:33 AM
> >
> Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 kmSMF
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> Chris has a excellent point about
> >
>
> >
> _Other
Aspects_
> >
>
> >
> It is no
longer possible to simplyincrease Baud to
> >
match data rate,
> >
> because of
fundamental electrical andoptical
>
propagation limits.
> >
> This was
recognized during the 100G SMF PMD discussion,
> >
with Serial
> >
> never a
viable alternative for the 10km or 40km reach. In the
> >
> future, all
data rates beyond 100G will use some form of
> >
multi-lane
> >
> technology.
40G is the inflection point where cost and
> >
difficulty of
> >
> Serial rises
dramatically compared to multi-lane alternatives.
> >
> Optical
communication has reached the point that all
> >
other forms of
> >
> communication
(wired or wireless) reached many years ago, where
> >
> simple
modulation format serial solutions are not practical.
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> The biggest downside of 40G serial, seems to be the physics
> >
problem of
> >
> PMD. However there are an increasing number of long haul equipment
> >
> providers who have solved this problem. There have been
> >
thousands of 40G
> >
> serial long haul installations deployed to date.
> >
>
> >
> As far as the Cost, Power, Size & Reliability I think this
favors
> >
> serial. The cost saving of CWDM seems largely drivenby the
> >
large number
> >
> of vendors providing 10G IC's and components. But letus
> >
ponder, if the
> >
> 10GE fathers chose 4x 2.5G WDM to reduce risk in thelate
> >
1990's would
> >
> we be benefiting from the low costs and the largenumber of
> >
vendors? All
> >
> we need is multiple vendors of 40G serial componentsand
> >
the prices will
> >
> plummet. Lets face it the cost of SiGe is not thatmuch
> >
higher than CMOS
> >
> unless you get to volumes greater than 100,000 parts.By
> then,
CMOS
> >
> processes will catch up to SiGe in FT. I am amicrowave guy
> >
and the 40G
> >
> packaging is not difficult these days ( there are many
> >
vendors that can
> >
> do LTCC fine line packages and they are "Open Tooled" so
> >
you can get a
> >
> reference design for the 40G electrical packages for no
> NRE ).
If we
> >
> compare microwave packaging to flip chip mounting of lasers
> >
and optics,
> >
> I would imagine optics costs more, but I have no "hard
> >
data" to support
> >
> this.
> >
>
> >
> The biggest reason why I favor serial over CWDM is the
> >
leadership for
> >
> the future. Lets take the risk like the 10G serial
> >
innovators did in the
> >
> late 90's. Once we get several manufacturers of 40Gparts
> >
this prices
> >
> will plummet.
> >
>
> >
> Schedule Risk. Albeit the risk for serial is higherbut how much?
> >
>
> >
> Let's keep technology moving forward for the futuregenerations.
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> Jeff Meyer
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> Chris Cole wrote:
> >
>
> >
>> Takai-san痴 7/31/08 email discusses a
number of points. Our
> >
arguments
> >
>> concerning his first two points (Cost and Time to Market) are
> >
>> unchanged from cole_04_0708, so are not repeated here. The
> >
remaining
> >
>> points are addressed below.
> >
>>
> >
>> _Power_
> >
>>
> >
>> The long term power consumption of 40GE CWDM and 40GE Serial
is
> >
>> similar. Four 10G un-cooled DFBs and associated Laser Drivers
use
> >
>> about the same power as one cooled 40G EML and
>
associated Modulator
> >
>> Driver. The remaining ICs are also about the same if
> >
advanced process
> >
>> nodes and new designs are assumed. As was pointed out by
> >
Joel Goergen
> >
>> during the Q&A session in Denver, a 40GE Serial block
diagram has
> >
>> comparable circuitry to 40GE CWDM block diagram when drawn
> >
fairly to
> >
>> permit apples to apples comparison.
> >
>>
> >
>> There is no basis for a claim at this late stage in the
> debate
that
> >
>> Serial has a power advantage over CWDM, and that CWDM
> > 菟ower reduction
> >
>> plans are invisible.・In jewell_03_0508,
p.9 and again in
> >
>> traverso_02_0708 p. 12, ratios of power between an
> >
aggressive Serial
> >
>> implementation and CWDM implementation are 0.96 and 0.97,
> >
i.e. clear
> >
>> statements in pro-serial presentations that there is no
>
advantage.
> >
>>
> >
>> _Size_
> >
>>
> >
>> For future generation products, CWDM has an advantage over
> >
Serial for
> >
>> fitting into a smaller form factor like QSFP because similar
to a
> >
>> 10GE-LR SFP+, the re-timing CDRs can be moved outside of
> >
the module.
> >
>> Serial always has to have the 4:1 SerDes function in the
> >
module. Even
> >
>> with aggressive projections about future component size
> and
power,
> >
>> Serial has a packaging and thermal management design
> >
challenge to fit
> >
>> into QSFP.
> >
>>
> >
>> What is required to fit 40GE CWDM into QSFP is optics
>
integration.
> >
>> This type of technology has been described in numerous
> >
presentations
> >
>> to the HSSG and involves flip-chipping lasers onto a PLC with
an
> >
>> integrated AWG Mux. The CWDM grid prevents use of a
>
monolithic DFB
> >
>> array and requires flip-chipping discrete DFBs, but that
> is a
yield
> >
>> and cost issue not a feasibility or size issue. The time
> >
line for such
> >
>> an advanced development program is lengthy, but is similar to
> >
>> realistic PCB RF-interconnect 40GE Serial development
> >
schedules. The
> >
>> investment required to bring this advanced technology to
> market
is
> >
>> high, again similar to one required for low cost 40GE Serial.
> >
>>
> >
>> In contrast, no advanced technology development is
> >
required to quickly
> >
>> bring to market first generation low cost CWDM products based
on
> >
>> discrete optics packaged in a larger form factor.
> >
>>
> >
>> _Reliability_
> >
>>
> >
>> There is no current 1310nm 10G DFB failure data that justifies
> >
>> bringing up concerns about the reliability of a 4x10G
> CWDM
PMD. 10G
> >
>> 1310nm PMDs ship in volume today with very high
> >
reliability. If there
> >
>> is actual field failure data behind this concern,it would add
> >
>> credibility to have it presented.
> >
>>
> >
>> _Other Aspects_
> >
>>
> >
>> It is no longer possible to simply increase Baudto match
> >
data rate,
> >
>> because of fundamental electrical and opticalpropagation
> >
limits. This
> >
>> was recognized during the 100G SMF PMD discussion,with
> >
Serial never a
> >
>> viable alternative for the 10km or 40km reach. Inthe
> >
future, all data
> >
>> rates beyond 100G will use some form of multi-lane
> >
technology. 40G is
> >
>> the inflection point where cost and difficulty of Serial rises
> >
>> dramatically compared to multi-lane alternatives. Optical
> >
>> communication has reached the point that all other forms of
> >
>> communication (wired or wireless) reached many years ago,
> >
where simple
> >
>> modulation format serial solutions are not practical.
> >
>>
> >
>> Chris
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>
> >
>