| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dave,
I agree. A 5% cost adder seems reasonable for a
17% increase in broad market potential.
I do wonder if part of the problem is the
compliance points TP0, TP1, TP1a, TP4, TP4a and TP5. In past efforts such
as 802.3z and 802.3ae, these compliance points have been left up to MSAs and
only TP2 and TP3 were of concern. Now the task force is dealing with such
issues as modules and the cost impact of various
implementations. IMHO, IEEE 802.3 was trying to avoid writing
implementation specifications and was focused on compliance
specifications. Could it be that these compliance points are causing the
task force some heartache because it results in an implementation
specification?
Just food for thought...
Thanks,
Brad
From: Chalupsky, David [mailto:david.chalupsky@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:18 PM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern The 20% cost premium
applies to only one of our proposed XR
alternatives. According to the
alternatives spreadsheet (Comparisons_xr_01_0708.xls) the CDR option adds only
5% module cost premium over the base proposal and provides reach of 168m to 251m
(across the OM3/4, one-sided/two-sided matrix). I’m struggling to keep
up with the conversation here – but I believe that the 5% alternative addresses
the same problem as the 20% alternative, right? On that assumption I
will rephrase Dan’s non-rhetorical question to address a 5% cost adder for 17%
increase in coverage: If I have the choice
between: A) carry two product
SKUs: 100m and 150m, with 5% Bill of Material cost delta on the 150m product;
or B) carry only the 150m
product I would accept option B
& use only the 150m module even though I know that most of my customers will
use it at <100m. By considering only the
bill of material of the module we are missing two aspects of the big picture on
cost. 1)
Carrying multiple product SKUs through design, validation, manufacture, customer
qualification, customer confusion, etc. adds cost. Regardless
of whether 802.3ba adds a second objective, if the module supplier base develops
two different module solutions for 100 & 150m, then the 100m solution will
carry an intangible cost burden and the desired 0% cost adder for 100m will not
be achieved anyway. 2) The
module is not the whole solution. The CDR module solution does not add
cost to the host. Thus a 5% increase in module cost is less than 5%
increase in the total cost of the switch plus
modules. I appreciate that the
task force is learning from the history of 10GBASE-SR: that over-specifying the
solution had a long term cost impact. However, we should take
away another lesson from 10Gbit: that providing too many options confuses
the customers & slows adoption. I strongly urge the
task force to provide a single solution for parallel MMF. I believe that
it’s worth a 5% cost adder to the module to achieve
that. I really have no
personal (or commercial) reason to prefer the CDR option. I’m just looking
at the 5% figure in the spreadsheet & wondering why this isn’t a
no-brainer. Thanks for your
time, Dave
Chalupsky From: Dove,
Daniel [mailto:dan.dove@xxxxxx] Hi
Mike,
Assuming we make the
decision that we want to stick with the "standard" model at 100m to keep those
customers we would lose by adding cost, does the IEEE standardize a 150m
solution or do we let the market solve that problem on its
own? This is not a
rhetorical question, although it might appear to
be. Can someone provide any
insight on the sensitivity of the market to an additional cost of 20% for every
100m link to satisfy the additional reach? If the market is
insensitive to cost (on this scale) then perhaps the additional reach is
justified. If the market is going to be sensitive to that differential cost,
then the question falls back to whether the IEEE wants to do a 150m spec or
leave it to a market-defned solution. Dan From: Mike
Dudek [mailto:Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxx] Hi
Dan Of course if we don’t
increase the cost of the basic Grade A model and have a Grade B version of the
same part for extra reach with the Grade B version being loaded with any
additional costs of handling two product codes and any additional testing, then
we shouldn’t lose any customers. Regards Mike Dudek PMTS Standards &
Technology JDS Uniphase CO 80027 Tel 303 530 3189
x7533. mike.dudek@xxxxxxxx From: Dove,
Daniel [mailto:dan.dove@xxxxxx] Let me re-state
one word of that message. From: Dove,
Daniel Hi
Steve, Yes that helped a lot.
I hope the others on the list are not irritated by my request for repetition of
the data. Given the data, it
truly is a challenging issue. I see a 20% premium for a 17% increase in
coverage. This means the
confidence in the numbers is exceptionally important and assuming they are
accurate, a judgement call by the committee on whether or not a 17% increase in
port coverage justifies the 20% increase in cost. This is important
because if you increase the *COST* of a solution by 20%,
you may decrease the number of customers who are willing to buy it by more than
20%. Thus, in the overall mix, it might turn out to satisfy less customers
overall. Its a pretty
challenging judgement call IMHO. Thanks for providing
the data. Dan |