-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Cole
[mailto:
chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:
Monday, September 08, 2008 3:25 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSent:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSent:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
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.pdf2010
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