Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective



Hi Paul,

There is no reason that more straw polls cannot gain information that was missed at the meeting. There is no reason not to have a straw poll via the reflector.

Jonathan has offered to lead the MMF adhoc. Lets give him a chance to do that job and hopefully the adhoc will gain insight for the study group on where presentations can build consensus.

I respectfully request that all of our SG participants simply respond to the straw poll and then attend the adhoc.

If you have suggestions for additional polling, please take them directly to Jonathan for consideration and if he feels it will improve the value of the polling, he can distribute another straw poll.

A reflector is a very difficult tool for establishing the polling questions. We have hundreds of people on this reflector, and if each one provided a single question, you can imagine where it would go.

I am happy to see the volume on the reflector, but would like to see efficiency as well.

Dan

On 2/24/12 8:52 AM, Kolesar, Paul wrote:

The message below was sent before it was completed.  I wanted to add some commentary on the indications from the straw polls taken at the end of the January meeting.  

 

Straw Poll #5

I am ready to adopt a MMF objective in this meeting

Y: 8

N: 52

 

Straw Poll #5

I am ready to adopt a SMF objective in this meeting

Y: 8

N: 53

 

The room was far from ready to set either MM or SM objectives.  To reverse that situation the next straw polls probed what was missing.  I have underlined the top three items from each list.

 

This type of contribution would help me decide upon an MMF objective:

Measured results on Tx : 7

Measured results on Rx : 8

More detailed analysis of relative module cost : 26

More detailed analysis of module power and system host budget : 21

More detailed analysis of relative total link cost : 29

More detailed analysis of market need/applicability : 23

More detailed analysis of balance between reach and complexity : 26

 

This type of contribution would help me decide upon an SMF objective:

Measured results on Tx : 3

Measured results on Rx : 0

More detailed analysis of relative module cost : 24

More detailed analysis of module power and system host budget : 16

More detailed analysis of relative total link cost : 32

More detailed analysis of market need/applicability : 22

More detailed analysis of balance between reach and complexity : 12

More detailed analysis of customer sensitivity to parallel vs. duplex fiber : 35

More detailed analysis of technical feasibility of PAM-n : 33

More detailed analysis of technical feasibility of LISELs : 5

 

To my knowledge there have been no contributions since the January meeting that address these aspects.  So while another straw poll may establish a starting point for discussions, why should there be any expectation that in the absence of further information on the topics above, that we can come to at least 75% consensus?  Instead of more polls, I suggest that the ad-hoc participants prepare contributions to address the open items indicated by the prior polls.  

 

Regards,

Paul


From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:21 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Pete,

I need to clarify that the objective I stated at the end of my last response “150 m on OM4” was not an endorsement of that objective.  It was what I determined to be the logical outcome of following your line of thinking.  

 


From: Alan Flatman [mailto:a_flatman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:15 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

I  support Pete and am also in favour of setting the objective to be 100m over MMF and leave the technical choices as to whether this means over OM3 or OM4 etc. to the TF.

 

Regards,  Alan

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:54 PM

Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Paul,

 

While I am not saying that 150m over OM4 may not be the outcome of the Task Force, it is my view that it is not the function of the Study Group to start to make technical choices for the Task Force.  I think the Study Group should set an objective at which the PMD has broad market potential etc. and try to make as few technical choices as possible.  150m over OM4 is quite a challenging objective and setting it would rule out some of the choices that the Task Force might want to make.  I am not of the view that if it turns out to be 100m over OM4 that this is not worth doing, so I  am more in favour of setting the objective to be 100m over MMF and leave the technical choices as to whether this means over OM3 or OM4 etc. to the TF.

 

Regards,

Pete Anslow | Senior Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street | London, EC2A 2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535 |

 

From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 24 February 2012 15:31
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Pete,

The line of thinking expressed in your second paragraph suggests that the MM reach objective would need to be revisited, presumably to be shortened for lower cost, should the SM PMD cost be projected to be low enough to cause it to be attractive for channel lengths within that MM reach.  If my interpretation is correct, and we do not have confidence in SM optics achieving such an aggressive cost decline, then the reach objective for MM should be at least as long as that established for 100GBASE-SR10, namely 150 m on OM4.  

 

Regards,

Paul

 


From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 9:10 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Chris,

 

I don’t think that this really helps.  What you really need to know in order to determine if an SMF PMD will affect what the reach should be for the MMF objective is the relative cost of the new MMF and SMF modules.  However, just knowing what the SMF reach objective is won’t tell you that.  Many of the decisions to be made by the Task Force will affect this relative cost and there was some consensus on the last SMF call that the only likely constraint on an SMF objective below say 2 km is the cost of parallel fibre.  It is not clear at this point whether a PMD capable of 1km (say PAM-8) is more expensive or cheaper than one that is only capable of 500m (say parallel fibre).

 

I think that the Study Group should decide on a MMF objective that stands on its own.  If it turns out that there is an SMF objective and the Task Force choices make the relative cost of that PMD low enough to affect the MMF reach, then the Task Force can seek to change the MMF objective.  This is (in my opinion) the earliest point that the group can rely on having a reasonable idea of the relative cost of the two solutions.

 

Regards,

Pete Anslow | Senior Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street | London, EC2A 2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535 |

 

From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 24 February 2012 14:47
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Steve

 

I tend to agree with you, but Paul does have a point that to some knowing what the SMF objective is important in deciding what the MMF objective should be.

 

My suggestion is that we keep the MMF poll exactly as Jonathan crafted it. Anyone that feels the SMF objective has to be decided first has the option to state so and then state their view of what that is likely to be. This will allow us to not delay making progress towards reaching consensus on a MMF objective

 

So let’s call this question A.

 

A)     To make a decision on an MMF reach objective, I am assuming the SMF reach objective will likely be:

a.      No SMF objective

b.      At least 500m

c. At least 1000m

d.      At least 2000m

 

Those like you and me who do not see strong linkage simply do not answer question A.

 

Jonathan can then record how many responses he receives to question A and the choice. Both results will give us a measure of the thinking of Ad Hoc participants.

 

Chris

 

 

From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve) [mailto:steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:14 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Hi Paul,

I don’t think it is nearly so clear that you should decide SM first.

 

If there existed a SM solution that was cost-competitive with a MM solution at some reach, it would be a game changer, and those developing MM solutions would surely like to know if the game will change before getting too far down the path. But most seem to believe that the game will not change, and even if it did, it is hard to prove because it is difficult to compare relative costs of dissimilar technologies.

 

Most still seem to believe (in spite of the interesting technology from Opnext) that there will be a significant step function from MM to SM that will keep people from wanting to use it in data centers. Furthermore, if you need a different cable type, for example, for a 70m link than you need for a 100m link, that creates its own kind of problem.

 

So if the game does not change, then SR4 needs to try to address most, if not all, of the reach currently addressed by SR10. If it turns out not to be technically or economically feasible to do that (e.g., if you could only get 60 or 70m out of the beast within reasonable cost, size and power), then if SM is to replace MM above that reach, it needs to get down to a cost to compete with an SR10 with a reverse gearbox. Even if SM does this, it isn’t clear they will get all of that market because of a likely reluctance to mix cable types in the data center – maybe they are happier to use SR10 with a reverse gearbox to reuse their existing cabling.

Regards,

Steve

 

From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:49 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective

 

Jonathan,

While I understand the desire to find a launching point for the discussion, this poll is approaching the problem in the wrong order because we need to know what the single-mode objective is first.  

 

A purpose of the Study Group is to set objectives that will allow us to establish cost-optimized 100GE.  One cannot logically pick cost-optimized MM objectives without first having framework around the SM optics that will be used to address channels with lengths that exceed the MM reach.  At this point, we have not even established if we will have a SM objective.  In other words, we don’t know if the existing LR4 will remain the only one, or if there will be another one added.  Only when the SM situation is established can we know the minimum capability that a new MM optic must fulfill to optimize cost.

 

I suggest that we first conduct such a poll for SM and use it to start the objective discussion in the SM ad-hoc.  If that produces solid results, then undertake the same endeavor for MM.

 

 

Regards,

Paul

 


From: Jonathan King [mailto:jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:13 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF and MMF Ad Hoc meetings: MMF objective
Importance: High

 

Dear all,

On the Feb 14th MMF ad hoc call , it seemed like we were  beginning to converge on a possible objective for MMF .

In the next meeting (Tuesday 28th Feb), I’d like to see if we can finalize a strawman MMF objective.  To that end I’ll prepare  a presentation which we can review  during the call which will include a strawman objective for review on the call, together with an overview of how it addresses the 5 criteria – to help get the best starting point for that discussion I’d like to get your responses to the questions below  questions:

 

The strawman objective will follow the wording in Anslow_01_0111

 

Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over OMX MMF with lengths up to at least Y m

 

 

1)      A reasonable MMF reach objective (i.e. the value of Y) would be

a.      100m

b.      Significantly less than 100m (what reach?)

c. Significantly more than 100m  (what reach ?)

d.      decided in the task force

 

2)      The MMF type should be

a.      decided in the task force

b.      OM3

c. OM4

d.      at least as good as OM4

 

Please send your responses to me directly at:  jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx

I will collate and report the results but will not reveal any individual’s responses.

If you feel uncomfortable expressing an opinion, say so and I’ll note that.

 

To  repeat, this is not a formal poll or vote, just intended to give us the best starting point for discussion on Tuesday.

Please send your responses as soon as possible, and at least by close of business on Monday 27th Feb, 2012

Many thanks !

 

Jonathan King

MMF ad hoc chair, Next Gen 100G Optics

 

From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:10 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF Ad Hoc and MMF Ad Hoc meetings

 

Hi,

 

Following on from the meetings on 14 February, Jonathan and I are planning to hold an SMF Ad Hoc meeting immediately followed by an MMF Ad Hoc meeting (1 hour each) starting at 8:00 am Pacific on Tuesday 28 February.

 

If you would like to present a contribution at the SMF ad hoc, please send it to me and for the MMF ad hoc, send it to Jonathan.

 

Peter Anslow from Ciena has invited you to join a meeting on the Web, using WebEx. Please join the meeting 5-10 minutes early so we may begin on time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic: "SMF Ad Hoc followed by MMF Ad Hoc"

Date & Time: Tuesday, 28 February 2012 at 16:00, GMT Time (London, GMT)

To join web meeting click here: https://ciena.webex.com/ciena/j.php?ED=136667227&UID=0&PW=NMGZjOWUwNDM2&RT=MTgjMjE%3D

Meeting password: IEEE (please note passwords are case sensitive)

Teleconference: Call-in number:

+44-203-4333547  (United Kingdom)

4438636577  (United States)
2064450056  (Canada)

Conference Code: 207 012 5535

Meeting number: 683 690 763

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Additional Notes:

- To add this meeting to your calendar program click the following link, or copy the link and paste it into your Web browser: https://ciena.webex.com/ciena/j.php?ED=136667227&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=18&ST=1&SHA2=zxju/MpyUhnp7ROB7hR78ViLpXBupiLpj4OEPm0zSJ8=&RT=MTgjMjE%3D

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Australia, Brisbane :        0730870163

Australia, Melbourne :   0383380011

Australia, Sydney :           0282386454

Austria, Vienna :               01253021727

Belgium, Brussels :          028948259

Bulgaria, Sofia : 024917751

Canada, All Cities :           2064450056

China, All Cities Domestic :           8008706896

China, All Cities Domestic :           4006920013

Czech Republic, Prague :               228882153

Denmark, Copenhagen :               32727639

Estonia, Tallinn :                6682564

Finland, Helsinki :             0923193023

France, Paris :    0170375518

Germany, Berlin :             03030013082

Germany, Frankfurt :     06924437355

Hong Kong, Hong Kong :               85230730462

Hungary, Budapest :       017789269

India, Bangalore :             08039418300

India, Chennai - Primary :             04430062138

India, Mumbai :                02239455533

India, New Delhi :            01139418310

Ireland, Dublin :                015269460

Israel, Tel Aviv : 37630760

Italy, Milan :       0200661900

Japan, Tokyo :   0345808383

Korea (South), All Cities :              0264903634

Latvia, Riga :       66013622

Lithuania, Vilnius :            52055461

Luxembourg, Luxembourg :        20881245

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur :              0348190063

Netherlands, Amsterdam :          0207946527

New Zealand, Auckland :              099291734

Norway, Oslo :  21033950

Poland, Warsaw :             223070121

Romania, Bucharest :     318144966

Russian Federation, Moscow :   4992701688

Singapore, All Cities :      6568829970

Slovak Republic, Bratislava :         0233418490

Slovenia, Ljubljana :        016003971

Spain, Barcelona :            935452633

Spain, Madrid :  911146624

Sweden, Stockholm :     0850512711

Switzerland, Bellinzona :               0912611463

United Kingdom, All Cities :         08443386571

United Kingdom, All Cities :         02034333547

United States, All Cities :               4438636577

Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh : 84838012419

 

Regards,

Pete Anslow | Senior Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street | London, EC2A 2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535 |