John;
I donot totally
disagree with your viewpoint, but prefer to explore further the impact on the schedule
or if delay can be avoided some way.
I feel this intensive debate
reflect the importance of this interface, show the common interest and the
sizable market needs behind that (keeping in mind I was in favor of one single
rate last year). I personally tend to agree with Peter and Sashi, believe good
standards should address market needs if fit into scope/objective, instead of “to
let the market to decide”.
Thanks
Frank
From: John Jaeger
[mailto:jjaeger@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008
11:42 AM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion
on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
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