RE: [10GBASE-T] September interim meeting
First generation 1000Base-T was implemented in 0.35u/3.3v process and
today's 1000Base-T is implemented in 0.13u/1.2v process. That is why I
asked for power dissipation estimates that can be achieved 2-3 years from
now in 90nm process and finer future geometries like 65nm. Power
reduction on 1000base-T PHYs was primarily achieved by process shrink and
lower power supply voltage.
I believe power dissipation is a factor that should considered. You are
correct that we can not be too exact about it. Based on our
estimates, first generation 10GBase-T in 90nm process will have lot
higher power than first generation 1000Base-T.
At 10:12 AM 7/31/2003 -0700, Bruce Tolley wrote:
Thanks for providing detail on data centers. I would argue that in terms
of broad market potential, 10GBASE-T would pass muster even if the only
market application was data centers.
On the power issue, the first 1000BASE-T implementations did not appear
until well after the standard was done, some 5 years after the High Speed
Study Group got its PAR, and consumed an obscene about of power. We might
have never achieved the low power 1000BASE-T PHYs we have today if
we had tried to agree on exact numbers in 1996.
At 11:00 AM 7/31/2003 -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
CX4 is useful especially when we have in rack
connections to make or ones going to the next rack. However, the distance
is too short for many other data center connects. Also, the cable for the
long distance is relatively bulky which may be a problem for some uses.
We will be glad to get it, but it only solves a corner of the problem
Something for the longer distances in data
centers that is lower cost than fiber would be useful. For that
environment, it doesn't necessarily have to rely on already installed
wiring. Running on existing wiring is nice, but not
My view of the important items for the data
It must perform solidly on the media we choose
for it - data integrity factors such as BER must be met.
It must be able to live on "standard"
server bus adapter formats with a TOE: e.g. PCI Express and
which means power is a
It must be transparent to existing MACs - that
is, the MAC must see the same behavior it sees with 10 Gig
100 m would be desireable (partly to enable
future horizontal usage) but the data center could live with shaving
something off that. (100 m is nice from a standards development
standpoint as it saves us from arguing about what lower number is
The media it runs over should not be so stiff
or bulky that it is a problem to accomodate with normal rack and data
center cable management.
Of couse it must also meet EMI
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Nariman Yousefi
- Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 8:10 PM
- To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
- Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] September interim meeting
- I agree that the issues you raised must be addressed by November. One
of the biggest challenges for this group is to establish reality on
technical feasibility on Cat7, Cat6 and Cat5e channels. Different
vendors have different conclusion on Technical feasibility. That is due
to assumptions on alien cross talk mitigation techniques, impact on
implementation impairments on SNR, channel model, coding gain, and
analysis on chip complexity in a given process. Assumptions must be
stated clearly by vendors that present technical feasibility. In this
case, technical feasibility drives the broad market potential.
Technical feasibility must be addressed at least based on the following
- 1. Achievable distance on Class D channel with and without
installation mitigation techniques.
- 2. Achievable distance on Class E channel with and without
installation mitigation techniques.
- 3. Transceiver complexity in terms of estimated power dissipation and
realistic targets for building blocks like ADC, PLL and etc 2-3 years
- We reached a conclusion that cat7 cable or class F channel has high
enough capacity for 10Gbps operation. But, can a transceiver be
built with reasonable power dissipation and cost say in 90nm process or
finer geometries to achieve broad market potential?
- We need to keep in mind that customers have fiber and CX4 as
- At 01:08 PM 7/30/2003 -0600, email@example.com
- Generally, when the group can agree on clear objectives, then they
can finish the rest of the work. Fuzzy objectives often indicate a lack
of real concensus.
- In November, I will also be expecting arguments that support the 5
criteria based on the objectives -
- Broad market potential - evidence that there will be a broad market
the minimum requirements of the objectives are met.
- Technical feasibility - is it feasible to meet those minimum
- Economic feasibility - when you have met the minimum requirements
will cost be suitable to make it a viable product in the markets?
- In the discussions at the plenary, a power consumption issue was
raised by some of the speakers.
- If the broad market potential is based in part on use in devices such
as end nodes (including servers in data centers), then an objective for
power consumption such that this can reside in server card formats would
be important. Can it fit within the power constraints of a PCI Express
board and an Infiniband board (remembering that one has to allow some
power for the MAC and probably TOE/RDMAP engine)?
- Looking at the objectifves in agenda_1_07_03, I don't see any that
address power consumption or the abilitiy to live on server card formats.
In a quick search, I also didn't find any material on power consumption
in the presentations that have been made to the study group. I hope that
in September the group will address the issue of power.
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Bruce Tolley
- Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:22 PM
- To: Booth, Bradley; firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] September interim meeting
- Thanks for the follow up.
- I am confident that if we can agree on crisp, clear objectives for 10
Gbps reach and media supported in September that we can get our PAR
approved and move into Task Force mode, which is where the real work
- At 06:35 PM 7/24/2003 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
- Study Group Members,
- Just to let others that were not at the meeting know the outcome of
the 802.3 Working Group meeting, the Study Group will have to complete
its PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives in November. This gives the
Study Group the task of completing the PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives in
4 months. This will make our September Interim meeting extremely
important. We will need to complete the effort as much as possible
to pre-submit to the 802.3 Working Group prior to the November
Plenary. November will permit us the ability to modify the PAR, 5
Criteria and Objectives prior to asking 802.3 to put the PAR on the
NesCom agenda. The September Interim meeting will focus on the
completion of our PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives.
- Chair, 10GBASE-T Study Group
- Bruce Tolley
- Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
- Gigabit Systems Business Unit
- Cisco Systems
- 170 West Tasman Drive
- MS SJ B2
- San Jose, CA 95134-1706
- internet: email@example.com
- ip phone: 408-526-4534
- "Don't put your hiking boots in the oven unless you plan on
- Colin Fletcher, The Complete Walker
Vice President Networking Engineering
PH (949) 585 5450
FAX (949) 453 1848
e-mail : Yousefi@Broadcom.com
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
170 West Tasman Drive
MS SJ B2
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
ip phone: 408-526-4534
"Don't put your hiking boots in the oven unless you plan on eating
Colin Fletcher, The Complete Walker