-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Cole [mailto:
chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:25 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Mori-san,
I agree with you that the data I presented today does not compare the cost of CWDM to the cost of Serial, and that it is important to compare the two.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Kazuyuki Mori [mailto:
mori.kazuyuki-1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 9:55 AM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Chris-san,
I think your data is not enough evidence that CWDM is cheaper than Serial.
Cost comparison between Serial and CWDM is important.
Kazuyuki Mori
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Cole" <
chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
John
Here you go.
Chris
________________________________
From: Abbott, John S Dr [mailto:
AbbottJS@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:05 AM
To: Chris Cole;
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
Chris could you put this data on a semilog scale as well. Thanks very much for pulling data together for this graph.
John Abbott
________________________________
From: Chris Cole [mailto:
chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 9:37 AM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
In his Aug. 7 reflector email below, Takai-san asked about 10G cost during the early stage of deployment. We realized that such data could offer excellent insight into 40G optics costs so we dug up a 2003 Ovum RHK report with early OC-192 costs.
In the enclosed graph, we plotted OC-192 SR-1 300-pin 10G data from Ovum RHK together with 10GBASE-LR XAUI data from Lightcounting (both relative to 2000 OC-192 SR-1 cost.) To the same graph, we added OC-768 VSR 300-pin 40G data from Lightcounting and 40GE-Serial cost projections from traverso_02_0708 (both relative to 2005 OC-768 VSR cost.)
Takai-san's intuition that OC-192 10G cost dropped dramatically in the early stage turned out to be correct; the drop was 3x in 3 years.
Interestingly, OC-768 40G cost in its early stage mirrored this dramatic drop, falling by 2.5x in 3 years.
The data further shows that the first 10GBASE-LR XAUI modules in 2004 were a substantial >2x cost reduction in two years, from the cost of
OC-192 SR-1 10G modules in 2002.
However, this historical 10G >2x cost drop is dwarfed by the enormous
>10x cost drop projected in traverso_02_0708 for the first 40GE-Serial
modules in 2010 from the cost of OC-768 VSR modules in 2008.
In fact this projected initial 40G >10x cost drop in 2 years is so dramatic that today 10GBASE-LR XAUI modules have not yet dropped this much from the cost of OC-192 SR-1 10G modules in 2002; the 10G cost drop has been about 6x in the last 6 years.
802.3ba Task Force would be well served next week not to rely on such hugely optimistic 40GE-Serial cost projections when considering proposals for the 40GE 10km SMF PMD baseline.
Chris
From: Atsushi Takai [mailto:
atsushi.takai@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:13 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
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 <mailto:
chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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 <mailto:
chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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 of 16:1 SerDes
- Low cost SerDes packaging
- Low cost RF interconnect
- Higher Volume
There is an in-depth discussion of low cost GPPO-less IF packaging and interconnect technology on pages 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the presentation, which supports three of the above bullets. However, this addresses the 1.3x (of the 10x total) cost reduction factor since it applies to GPPO-less IF.
This leaves two other above bullets to account for majority of the 8x cost drop in two years.
There is no specific discussion in the presentation of why a 4:1 SerDes is cheaper then a 16:1 SerDes, although comments were made during Q&A in Denver that the I/O count is reduced. Since there is general agreement 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 of the 8x cost drop in two years, with page 13 giving the volume assumption as 120K in 2010. In his 8/2/08 email, Takai-san estimated the cumulative 40G 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 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.
A much more reasonable conclusion is that there will be a 2x to 3x cost drop in two years, as projected in cole_08_0708, page 9, and traverso_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 network byreducing the dependency on LAG by a factor of
4 and one could argue that4X on SMF is perfectly fine."
Last I am now getting confused with this latest 2X 10G cost on top of allthe 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 between 0.5Xand 0.3X CWDM (even lower than traverso_02_0708 in
2012)
Why the story keeps changing on serial?
Thanks,
Alessandro