So do I read the implication of these two statements below, that
you both are ready to abandon the schedule if/assuming we are at an impasse
come the end of the upcoming meeting? For my customers and where I place
priorities, I would vastly prefer to drop the objective and keep the draft
standard efforts on track vs. the alternative of not being able to reach a 75% decision,
and so early in the process miss a critical schedule milestone. And to be
clear, yes – reaching a decision on the 10km SMF PHY and moving forward is
the preferred outcome, but give me the next choice because of an inability to
get the agreement, and there is no hesitancy for me on how to respond.
Regards,
John
From: Petar Pepeljugoski
[mailto:petarp@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:19 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Mark,
I agree with
Sashi. We do need the 10km SMF interface for 40 G and the effort should not be
abandoned.
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:
|
"Thiagarajan,
Sashi" <SThiagar@xxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To:
|
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
Date:
|
08/21/2008
01:47 PM
|
|
Subject:
|
Re:
[802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
|
Mark
et. al.,
We
believe that the 40G 10km SMF interface is important for the standard and
should not be abandoned.
I am sure there is a good number of us who believe that any interface for this
objective is better than
no
interface.
With
that in mind, we strongly urge the members of the task force take the time to
understand
the
issues and NOT abstain from associated straw polls and motions at the upcoming
meeting.
Sashi
Thiagarajan
Ciena
Corporation
From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) [mailto:mnowell@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:25 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Takai-san,
I was trying to
focus the discussion on the issue of how to close this issue within 802.3ba.
I can not comment until we have taken more polls/votes on whether we are
seeing any shifts in support that you are alluding to.
I understand
that the serial proponents strongly believe their position based on their
analysis of that data as you clearly demonstrate.
My original
concern from below is unchanged though, how does the Task Force move forward if
neither proposal gets the 75% support needed at the next meeting? Do we
abandon the schedule we already agreed to as a TF or take steps to stay on
schedule?
Mark
From: Atsushi Takai [mailto:atsushi.takai@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 11:56 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Mark
I also
back from my vacation.
However
I will visit my hometown for my mother's "Hatsubon" (Japanese
important ceremony).
Thus I
can not discuss promptly but I would like to try to discuss.
> I wouldn't want to
predict much difference in a future poll/vote from the 68% vs 32% we had in
Denver.
It may
not be true because I received e-mails from some people who became serial
supporter.
(I do
not avoid the possibility that other some people changed change to CWDM.)
I
believe we have to define standard using "right" technology as Gary
pointed.
I believe
CWDM is not "right" technology.
I
believe that a standard must give some profit or merit.
The largest profit in this standard is to give wider bandwidth with lower cost
and lower power consumption, and maybe smaller size.
I
was informed, we are requested 6x10G cost at least as a target for 100GbE
(10x10G bandwidth).
Thus
the "right" standard must be achievable to lower cost/bit and lower
power consumption/bit target.
During the discussions, it is not clear how to reduce cost less than 4x in case
of CWDM.
Or it seems it is almost impossible to reduce cost from 4x significantly.
Thus
I have a big question mark for CWDM that may not improve at least cost/bit.
I
believe CWDM is not "right" technology.
I
believe serial is "right" technology.
How long have we been using 100M, 1G and 10G standard?
We must not decide only for the "best" solution in 2010 or so.
The
"right" standard must remain long term, say longer than 10 years.
Many discussions were how to reduce cost and when crossover would happen in
case of serial.
Ali's mail reminded me the Newport CMOS.
I
discussed with Newport in Q1, 2000 in detail
I
know the same level of 40G CMOS IC today.
And I know there needed some step from prototyping IC to market available IC.
Also I know many efforts for 40G DFB.
We used GPPO for 10G in early stage but we were successful to remove it.
We
know how to reduce cost for 40G serial in near future.
Our
target is 2-2.5 times of 10G.
I
think MSA is enough for short term solution if necessary.
There is X40 MSA ( http://www.x40msa.org/ ) that is
very similar to CWDM 40G.
We may establish new MSA based X40 MSA to fit for 40GbE.
I
think we will take off CWDM from the table until CWDM will be proven the
significant cost/bit improvement.
We
should focus if serial is right technology for standard, while I believe no
doubt.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Atsushi Takai
Marketing Division, Opnext Japan, Inc
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Nowell (mnowell)
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Thananya,
I'm just back
from a week's vacation and just finished reading all the reflector traffic on
this topic. I was just coming to the same conclusion as you when I
finally got to your email.
Based on my
assessment, we have no new information available to us. It is already all
out there and available to the group. The difference is that people are
taking that information and interpreting it in different ways to reach their
position dependent on their priorities and points of view. I wouldn't
want to predict much difference in a future poll/vote from the 68% vs 32% we
had in Denver. We therefore have entrenched positions.
Seems the only
two options are to slow the whole standard's progress down while we debate this
topic (note that we have no new information though so not sure the value in
that), or else remove the objective per Alessandro's note.
My observation
is that this is arguably gone past the technical considerations. That is
over, the majority of the data is available. This is now essentially a
non-technical issue on how we get closure on the issue. Can the ~ 2:1
majority position get past the 75% hurdle or does the group need to make the
necessary procedural decisions to allow the standard to maintain it's agreed
target schedule?
I'd prefer to
debate this aspect more than further clarifications on cost analyses...
Mark
From: Thananya Baldwin [mailto:thananya@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 3:48 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
All -
Seeing the traffic on this email thread, is it time to consider Alessandro's
possible scenario c) [excerpt
from his email dated 7/31/8]
… My concern now shifts to how to resolve the impasse
without impacting the standard. … c) We give
up the objective (I can't believe I am writing this:-) because we can't get
consensus. At that point I think the market will decide.
Would be an
interesting data point to see where the TF stands on this option.
--------------------------------------------
Thananya Baldwin
Director of Strategic Programs
Ixia
thananya@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original
Message-----
From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 6:16 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Mori-san,
Let me
address the size questions first.
Double
XENPAK size is one alternative for a quick development program for 40GE-CWDM
PMD using existing components, although other alternatives are possible.
Let's assume
that 2x XENPAK size is about 120mm x 72mm. This size needs to accommodate the
functionality of 4 XFPs and a Mux/DeMux.
XFP size is
70mm x 18mm, so four XFPs use 2/3 of the available area.
This leaves 50mm x 72mm for the Mux/DeMux. One example of a TFF Mux/DeMux was
presented in paatzsh_01_0708 with size given on page 3 as 13mm x 13mm, which
leaves plenty of room for fiber routing, etc.
So your
concern about having to push components into the module was unfounded.
By
comparison, 40G Serial GPPO based telecom modules are now moving to 4.5" x
3.5" size (about 114mm x 90mm,) i.e. very comparable in size to the above.
With respect
to cost, I do not understand your specific question about "cost down
technology." What you kindly clarify what you would like me to comment on?
However,
more generally I am confused as to what you are trying to accomplish with your
40GE-CWDM cost questions. There is agreement, as confirmed by your emails that
the cost using existing technology is between 4x and 8x 10GE LR. Further, the
initial cost in 2010 is projected as about 6x 2010 10GE LR, as in
traverso_02_0708 and in several emails from Serial proponents, for example in
Takai-san's
7/31/08
email. With incremental cost reduction investment this cost may asymptotically
approach 4x of 10GE LR cost decreasing over time (NOT 4x of 10GE LR in a
specific year like 2010.)
So what
exactly is the motivation for debating a point that has agreement?
Chris
-----Original
Message-----
From: Kazuyuki Mori [mailto:mori.kazuyuki-1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 8:25 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Chris-san
Thank you
for your reply, but I found no answers for my questions about 4x10G CWDM module
in your comment.
- Cost down technology
- Module size (double XENPAK is correct?)
And I'd like
to ask below question;
- How to push 4-TOSAs, 4-ROSAs and 2-TFFs into the module?
Thanks,
Kazuyuki Mori
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Chris Cole" <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Mori-san,
Thank you
for clarifying that direct connection means the use of a GPPO
adaptor instead of GPPO cable between the SerDes IC PCB and the optics.
With respect
to your specific comments and questions:
1) Cost
You are
correct that 802.3ba TF consensus is that 40GE-CWDM cost will be
between 4x and 8x of 10GE-LR.
HOWEVER this
is relative to 10GE-LR cost over time. So a constant cost
multiplier ratio like 4x, means that the absolute cost is decreasing by
following the decrease in the cost of 10GE-LR.
Your
statement that no CWDM solution will realize less then 4x cost
reduction is misleading, as already pointed out by Steve Trowbridge in
his 8/4/08 reflector email.
You are
comparing a falling cost ratio of 40GE-Serial against a constant
cost reference (10GE LR in 2010,) versus a constant cost ratio of
40GE-CWDM (4x) against a falling cost reference (10GE-LR over time.)
This is not apples-to-apples.
So let's do
a fair apples-to-apples comparison. On page 15 of
traverso_02_0708, 40GE-Serial with GPPO IF cost (your reflector email
proposal) in 2010 is 5.9x 2010 10GE LR cost, and in 2012 is 3.7x 2010
10GE LR cost. This represents a huge 8x cost reduction from the cost of
40GE-Serial in 2008, and then very steep cost reduction from 2010 to
2012 (1.6x.)
On the same
page, 40GE-CWDM cost in 2010 is 5.9x 2010 10GE LR cost, and
in 2012 is 4.9x 2010 10GE LR cost. Since just the cost of 10GE LR will
drop from 1x in 2010 to 0.73x in 2012, this means you are claiming that
in 2012 40GE-CWDM cost is 6.7x 2012 10GE LR cost, i.e. the cost
multiplier is increasing! This will NOT be the case, and would only
happen if there was NO cost reduction investment in 40GE-CWDM.
A much more
accurate cost reduction prediction is that if 40GE-CWDM cost
in 2010 is 5.9x 2010 10GE LR cost, then in 2012 it is 4.3x 2010 10GE LR
cost, i.e. following 10GE LR cost decrease.
If the same
type of aggressiveness is used to predict CWDM cost as is
being used for Serial cost predictions, then 40GE-CWDM cost in 2010 is
5x 2010 10GE LR cost, and in 2012 is 3.7x 2010 10GE LR cost (less then
4x!)
40GE-Serial
has no cost advantage over 40GE-CWDM in the foreseeable
future. Contrary to many statements, 40GE-CWDM cost will fall below 4x
10GE LR cost if the cost reference is 10GE LR in a given year, like 2010
which is what is used for 40GE-Serial cost predictions.
2) Size,
form factor
You are
making an unfair comparison of what is possible for 40GE-Serial
advanced technology with a huge investment, to what is possible with
40GE-CWDM off the shelf technology with modest investment.
To package
today's 40GE-Serial technology (GPPO IF ICs and Optics) in a
pluggable form factor, something like double XENPAK is required. A
XENPAK or X2 size is not feasible.
As I
commented in my 7/31/08 email to Takai-san, if we are to make a
fair comparison of advanced technology with huge investment, CWDM has a
size advantage over Serial. CWDM CDRs can be separated from the optics,
and an un-retimed form factor like QSFP becomes possible with optics
integration. For Serial, the SerDes always have to be packaged with the
optics leading to a size disadvantage for both space and thermal
reasons.
3) CWDM
optics connection
The proposal
for quick time to market 40GE-CWDM product is to use
existing discrete 10G OSAs (with DFBs on the CWDM grid) connected with
separate fibers to discrete TFF, similar to what was presented in
paatzch_01_0708 but for CWDM.
Thank you
Chris
-----Original
Message-----
From: Kazuyuki Mori [mailto:mori.kazuyuki-1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:50 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Fwd: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
Chris-san,
Actually, a
female-female adaptor is used for GPPO connection. I know
the
cost of every such GPPO component is relatively high when compared to
10GE
LR XFP component cost.
This kind of RF interconnection technologies enables us to reduce size
(XENPAK or X2) and cost of 40GE Serial modules.
Anyway, I
don't know the details of 4x10G CWDM module.
1)Cost
TF consensus are 4x-8x of 10GE LR and no solution to realize under
4x.
2)Size, form factor
What kind of form factor do you use, double size of XENPAK?
3)Connection between optics
Do you use discrete optics? Do you use fiber to connect between
optics?
Thanks,
Kazuyuki Mori
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Chris Cole" <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Fwd: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
Mori-san,
The only
commercially available PCB edge mount GPPO connectors I know
have male polarity, which is the same as XLMD GPPO connectors.
Are you
developing commercial female polarity PCB GPPO connectors that
could be directly connected to the XLMD GPPO connectors?
Or by direct
connection do you mean that instead of flexible
female-female polarity GPPO cable you use rigid female-female polarity
GPPO bullet?
As you know,
the cost of every such GPPO component is significant when
compared to 10GE LR XFP component costs.
Thank you
Chris
-----Original
Message-----
From: Kazuyuki Mori [mailto:mori.kazuyuki-1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:25 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Fwd: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
Chris-san,
We connect
the PCB edge mount GPPO connectors and GPPO connectors on the
XLMD optics
directly. Therefore we can eliminate the GPPO cable and
reduce
module size.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki Mori
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Chris Cole" <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Fwd: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
Hello
Mori-san,
Thank you
for continuing to fill in the details of the 40GE-Serial
baseline
proposal.
You
correctly point out that edge mount type GPPO connectors are
commercially available. Various types of such edge connectors are used
on
all 40G GPPO IC and Optics packages, and ship in 10Ks volume into
telecom
applications.
Is is
reasonable to assume that the interconnect between the PCB edge
mount
GPPO connectors and GPPO conectors on the XLMD optics are GPPO cables,
similar to cables used in 40G modules today, for example as shown in the
left hand
photograph on page 8 of traverso_02_0708?
Chris
________________________________
From:
Kazuyuki Mori [mailto:mori.kazuyuki-1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 10:37 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Fwd: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km
SMF
Hello
Chris-san,
Sorry for
our insufficient information for RF interconnection. In case
of
XLMD, we use an edge mount type GPPO connector at the end of PCB, so we
can
apply the SMT type package for SerDes as shown on the right side of page
6
of traverso_02_0708. We already confirmed the characteristics of this RF
interconnection; the result shows 50GHz BW. As you know well, the edge
mount
type GPPO connector is already commercially available.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki Mori