RE: Supporting Installed Fibre
Obviously, I disagree here. If the number of channels in a WWDM solution is
fixed at 4, and the speed is fixed at 3.125Gbd, then all of the components
will follow the same price curve as any other 3.125 Gbd components. The
passive optics are already dirt cheap and they only get cheaper with volume.
We have been through this cost debate over and over, and without showing
real cost models, it is pointless to continue arguing. I believe that the
WWDM solution will turn out to be the lowest cost solution for the 100m,
300m, 2km, and 10 km objectives. I know that there are those who disagree
with me. We'll only know the answer when real products start appearing in
catalogues for these distance targets. Until then, I think the objectives
should reflect customer needs, and not transceiver cost.
From: jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:01 AM
Cc: Alan Flatman; IEEE 802.3 HSSG
Subject: Re: Supporting Installed Fibre
The alternative to WWDM is probably a multi-level coding scheme (dibits or
quadbits per baud), which will reduce the baud rate to a managable
frequency. Transcendata is working on such a system. Others may be looking
at alternative coding schemes as well.
The disadvantage of this approach is that the IC's become very complex.
Reletive to WWDM, this is also the charm, as the IC's will be subject to
Moore's law, while the passive optics, plus 4X the number of devices, IC's
etc. of WWDM will probably not.
It seems unlikely to me that the H-P WWDM will conform to the pricing curve
your customers expect. I think waiting a little while before we make a
comittment might yield a scheme which better meets your customers