Scott,
As you know, as Chair, during the course
of the project I have tried to accommodate requests from individuals due to
their schedule issues, provided it did not interfere with any critical track to
the meeting. I have been aware of Matt’s schedule issue, as he had
contacted me in regards to giving a presentation for another individual who
could not make the Interim meeting.
As chair, it is my responsibility, per the
IEEE 802.3 Working Group Operating Rules (Section 3.4), “to produce a draft standard, recommended
practice, or guideline in a reasonable amount of time for review and approval
by the WG.” After considerable thought and discussion with Ilango,
our chief editor, and others in the 802.3 WG leadership, I believe the
best way for this meeting to proceed is as outlined below:
Tues
- hear proposals / technical presentations
related to the 40G =>10km SMF Objective
- after hearing presentations,
have general discussion period, allowing for straw polls
Wed
- Hear motion(s) related to the 40G
=>10km SMF Objective
- Hear 2 other presentations
related to perceived holes in draft
- Begin technical review of Draft
0.9
Thursday
- Continue technical review of
Draft 0.9
Friday
- Finish technical review of
Draft 0.9
- Motions and Discussion
There are a number of reasons as to
why the meeting was organized in this fashion.
- As announced in the call for presentations – “The
meeting will be organized to see if the TF can resolve the baseline
proposal for the 40G >= 10km SMF objective prior to starting the review
of the proposed text.” The reason for this is to minimize any
further potential impact to schedule by allowing the TF to review the proposed
text for an adopted solution (assuming said adoption occurs) as part of
the review of Draft 0.9.
- Given the number of presentations that the TF will be
hearing on Tuesday, it will need time to consider this new information, as
well as do offline consensus building. Therefore, as outlined above,
the actual motion or motions will be held first thing Wednesday morning
before starting the review. This approach will allow Tuesday night
for consensus building, which we know is critical to making progress.
- There is another potential course of action that I as
chair must take into consideration, and that is the potential that someone
will make a motion for the removal of the objective from the project if no
decision is reached on Wednesday. I want to make sure to allow
for enough time for offline discussion and consensus building if this
course is to be considered. Obviously, I hope we can resolve the
current situation, but I must make contingency plans.
For the reasons noted above pushing the presentations and
motion to further back in the week would actually be counter-productive to the
progress of this meeting’s effort. Please note that Matt arrives
Tuesday evening, and therefore will be able to participate in the motion and
discussion related to that motion on Wednesday morning.
Regards,
John
From: Scott Kipp [mailto:skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008
7:21 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion
on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
John DAmbrosia,
Has the agenda for the meeting been set so
that we will talk about 40G SM on Tuesday?
I would suggest that we delay this
discussion until Wednesday or Thursday so that the main proponent
(Matt) of one of the camps can be present. If we're going to be
reviewing the draft for most of the 4 days, the Chris and Matt show would give
us a good break in the middle of the review.
From: Matt Traverso [mailto:matt.traverso@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008
6:54 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Discussion
on 40G for ="" 10 km SMF
All,
Sorry here is the text below without my company automated postscript
added.
--matt
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Traverso, Matt <MTraverso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
Unfortunately, I cannot attend the 40G SMF 10km discussion on Tuesday. My
flight arrives Tuesday evening (I'm in the wedding of a close friend of mine on
Sunday in North America and cannot get a
flight out until Monday). So ahead of time, I apologize for not being
there to provide a recycling bin for the marketing material that I expect Chris
will hand out as he did in Denver.
Chris,
When I graphed the data it looked slightly different I think due to slight
differences in which issue of the forecasted sources you used (I tried numerous
but couldn't find the right mix). This graph will be presented on Tuesday
in Seoul.
Regardless, you are correct that the we are suggesting the below key
points:
Key Points:
1) We, the 40G serial camp, is projecting a significant reduction in cost of 40GbE
relative to OC768.
2) Comparing to OC768 is not accurate as the transmission window is
different -- the cost of 1310 EML & the recevie chain is inherently lower
at 40G than for a 1550nm TX & RX.
3) There are numerous technologies being brought into line to drive this cost
reduction especially refinement of RF interconnect technology.
4) 40GbE 10km serial is technically feasible today. There is a clear path
to serial being lower in cost in 2010. There is a very clear path to
40GbE serial being the lowest cost as time goes forward.
Thanks
--matt
-----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
|