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

RE: 20 ppm clock tolerance for WIS


I agree with the 2x to 3x price difference between the 100 and 20 ppm part.
As you mentioned the 20 ppm part will satisfy the 100 ppm requirement and if
board space is a problem, it can be a stuffing option in production with a
single instantiation of the Osc. on the PCB.

Sharam Hakimi

> ----------
> From: 	David Martin[SMTP:dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 	Thursday, June 08, 2000 5:00 PM
> To: 	stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: 	RE: 20 ppm clock tolerance for WIS
> Howard, 
> Information I have on oscillators/tolerances & pricing aligns well with
> your 
> findings. Although there may be up to a 2-3x price factor between 100 & 20
> ppm parts, the absolute difference is in the 'used hubcap' realm.
> Something 
> that could be washed out over time with the large volumes of Ethernet
> ports. 
> Cross-linking to Henning's thread on reference clocks, I could then
> envisage 
> a 10GE LAN PHY card with a 156.25M +/-100ppm crystal or a 10GE WAN PHY 
> card with a 155.52M +/-20ppm crystal. I'm wondering what your view is for
> a 
> dual-mode UniPHY card. Obviously a 20ppm crystal also satisfies the LAN
> spec, 
> but a 730kHz swing is more than a crystal can be tuned, so it sounds like
> both 
> oscillators would be needed. That's about an extra square inch of board
> space, etc. 
> Thoughts? 
> ...Dave 
> 	-----Original Message----- 
> From:   Howard Frazier [SMTP:hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent:   Monday, June 05, 2000 6:26 PM 
> To:     stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx 
> Subject:        Re: 20 ppm clock tolerance for WIS 
> 	Praveen, 
> 	I appologize for the delay in responding to your question.  I wanted
> to 
> be absolutely sure of the facts before I replied. 
> 	I have sent out 5 requests for quotes for oscillators, and thus far
> I 
> have received three responses. 
> 	The first two responses indicated a less than 10% price premium for
> a 
> 20 ppm 155.52 MHz oscillator versus a 100 ppm oscillator with otherwise 
> identical specs.  I can't talk about absolute price on this reflector, 
> but I can say that the price difference is very small.  Truly, it is 
> lost in the noise as far as the overall cost for a 10 Gigabit interface 
> is concerned. 
> 	The third quote I received indicated a more substantial cost 
> difference.  The 20 ppm oscillator cost twice as much as the 100 ppm. 
> However, the lead time for the 100 ppm oscillator was 20 weeks, whereas 
> the 20 ppm oscillator is available immediately.  Once again, the 
> absolute price difference is a very small percentage of the overall 
> cost for a 10 Gigabit adapter. 
> 	My conclusion remains the same.  Specifying 20 ppm is the right way
> to 
> go.  The cost difference does not justify changing to 100 ppm, because 
> this change probably will compromise compatibility with existing OC-192 
> transponders and regenerators. 
> 	As to the jitter specifications, it is my understanding that the WAN
> PHY proponents want to use all of the same optical components that are 
> being specified for the LAN applications of 10 Gigabit Ethernet.  I 
> believe that the SONET jitter specifications do impose additional cost 
> on the optical components.  It is unreasonable to burden the LAN 
> applications with the cost of meeting the SONET jitter specifications. 
> Therefore, while I am keeping an open mind on the topic, and I am 
> willing to consider other points of view, I believe that we should not 
> impose the SONET jitter specifications on the 802.3ae PMDs, and I don't 
> think that this will compromise compatibility with OC-192 transponders 
> and regenerators. 
> 	If I get any additional responses to my requests for quotes, I will 
> be happy to share them on the reflector. 
> 	Howard Frazier 
> Cisco Systems, Inc. 
> 	----- Begin Included Message ----- 
> 	From praveen@xxxxxxxxxxx Tue May 30 15:38:01 2000 
> X-Sender: praveen@mailhost-sv 
> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 15:56:05 -0700 
> To: gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx, hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx, stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx 
> From: Praveen Kumar <praveen@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Subject: 20 ppm clock tolerance for WIS 
> Mime-Version: 1.0 
> X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: praveen@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> X-SMAP-Received-From: outside 
> 	Gary, Howard: 
>         For the benefit of those who could not make it to your
> presentation in 
> Ottawa,  could you clarify some of the issues that you raise. 
> 	You mention that the "cost difference between +/-20ppm and +/-100ppm
> oscillators is a tiny fraction of the total cost of a 10GigE  interface". 
> Could you perhaps substantiate this statement with quantitative input
> (some 
> real numbers).  My understanding is that the +-100ppm tolerance was 
> specified only to keep the cost down (as the cost differential between a 
> 20ppm solution and 100ppm solution is perceived to be significant). 
> 	You recommend using "LAN PHY jitter specs".  This makes the WIS 
> incompatible with installed base SONET . This doesn't seem to meet your 
> goal of being compatible with installed OC-192 SONET 
> infrastructure.  Please clarify. 
> 	-Praveen 
> 	----- End Included Message -----