RE: re: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear
- To: Bill Woodruff <woodruff@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Perkins, Drew" <drew.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'piers_dawe@xxxxxx'" <piers_dawe@xxxxxx>, "'stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxx'" <stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxx>, "'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: re: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear
- From: "Chang, Edward S" <Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:50:14 -0400
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I believe, users support both serial and parallel approaches. Both are
equally viable. It is a mistake at this initial stage using limited
knowledge to determine the market several years down the road. Market is
shaped by human preferences, then technologies; therefore, we can not use a
few technical facts to predict future market direction.
When we, a group, introduced VICEL to industry, there were objections
everywhere. Today, Vixcel is the winner. Whenever, there are needs in
market, someone will come up with a right product.
By the way, do you think VCSEL will perform at 10 Gbps in the near future?
From: Bill Woodruff [mailto:woodruff@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 1:48 AM
To: Perkins, Drew; 'piers_dawe@xxxxxx';
Subject: re: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear
The technologies that are shipping today for 10Gb/s include production
silicon. The issues that drive cost will include both chips and optics.
Both at 10G are early in their life cycle, but appear to be very responsive
to increasing volumes.
I expect that the chip vendors (like GiGA, with siicon) and the optics
vendors (both edge emitting and VIXEL) project that cost is greatly a
function of volume. Of course, vendors make incremental improvements in
their devices over time which continue to drive down costs (die sizes,
packaging changes, etc.).
What level of integration is needed to have a cost effective device? Is
there a PHY market today at GE? I believe so. Therefore, a serial 10GE
approach based on a PHY in a 'fast' process is logically as cost effective
(with volume) as prior generations.
I'm not discounting WWDM for distance / fiber issues, but a serial approach
should not be assumed to be at a cost disadvantage.
Bill Woodruff ph: 805 496-7181
GiGA North America Inc. fax: 805 496-7507
299 W. Hillcrest Dr., Suite 206 woodruff@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 http://www.giga.dk/
>> It seems to me that we're drawing to a conclusion something like the
>> Semiconductor technology is continuing to follow Moore's Law. That
>> that the next generation of silicon will support something in the
>> neighborhood of 2.5 - 3.125 Gb/s since the current generation supports
>> Gb/s. Some day, however, another generation (maybe the next) will
>> something in the neighborhood of 10 Gb/s. This may be using SiGe
>> Si. So, we should plan for two or more generations to occur: 2.5 -
>> (G1) and 10 Gb/s (G2). Of course GaAs supports 10 Gb/s today, but is
>> being more expensive than Si or SiGe. So we probably want to specify a
>> serial version of 10 Gb/s immediately as well, but we should expect
>> may have to revise it when G2 becomes available.
>> G1: For Generation 1, we will want to use a non-serial protocol
>> implementation that leverages G1 silicon. This may be WWDM/CWDM/etc.
>> MAS. We may also need to do this because of fiber impairments that
>> allow 10 Gb/s serial anyway. For G1, we may want to specify multiple
>> standards, just like Gigabit Ethernet did. We may want equivalents of
>> LX. In fact, perhaps these two standards were well enough matched to
>> demands that we should copy the requirements and try to meet them.
>> these standards may have not set a good set of expectations that the
>> will force us to meet. I would propose that we take these two as
>> goals. I.e. let's use the same fiber types and lengths as our goals
>> to work with them. This probably implies that we want an SX-like
>> that uses 850 nm VCSELs, and an LX-like solution that uses 1310 nm FP
>> G2: For Generation 2, we will want to use a serial protocol
>> that leverages G2 semiconductors on fiber that supports it. In fact,
>> probably want to specify and standardize a 10 Gb/s solution
>> well for use with GaAs technology.
>> Ciena Corporation Email: ddp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Core Switching Division Tel: 408-865-6202
>> 10201 Bubb Road Fax: 408-865-6291
>> Cupertino, CA 95014 Cell/Pager: 408-829-8298
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
>> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 5:46 PM
>> To: piers_dawe@xxxxxx; stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxx;
>> Subject: Re: Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear
>> In a message dated 6/28/99 2:41:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> piers_dawe@xxxxxx writes:
>> > Why wrong LINE rate could cost dear
>> > 1. Cost JUMPS as bit rate goes up.
>> > Faster IC technologies, more heat, possibly substantial extra
>> > around the optoelectronics.
>> > Lasers don't follow Moore's Law.
>> > Unlike transistors, there is no virtuous circle of smaller ->
>> > cheaper -> better. The guts of a laser are sized for the
>> > Laser speed has increased slowly and unevenly, but until now, they
>> > fast enough (for 2.5 Gbit/s line rate). Optical modulator type
>> > transmitters as used in OC-192 are very expensive.
>> > Picking a line rate that's faster than the state of the art will
>> > product availability and cause extra costs into the future (25% to
>> > more? make your own guess).
>> > 2. Standards are good.
>> > Line clock ICs take time and money to design. Other parts
>> > (multiplexers, receivers, whatever) may be in the market now for
>> > Gbit/s, a very few at OC-192+FEC rates, none for 12.5 Gbit/s.
>> > parts are rarely right first time, respins add to the delays...
>> > Picking a non-standard line rate could cause delay and further
>> > the market for parts which we believe are currently too expensive
>> > where volumes are driving costs down.
>> > So, I believe that raising the line rate of optical transmitters
>> > four-fold is a worthwhile achievement, and then we attach ourselves
>> > the nearest standard, the OC-192 line rate of 9.95328 Gbit/s.
>> > the line rate of optical transmitters five-fold, out ahead of the
>> > of a slow-moving art and away from any standard, will cost money
>> > delay and needs very good justification. There's an obvious direct
>> > on link length too (dispersion limited) but what I'm talking about
>> > more severe than that.
>> > Can we get back the difference between what's desired and what's
>> > affordable by looking at line codes, interframe gap or what? Maybe
>> > settle for 95% of what we would like and get a good-enough job done
>> > time and affordably?
>> > "Keep it simple, follow standards, keep it cheap."
>> > Piers Dawe
>> > --
>> To all:
>> I heartily agree with Piers' recommendation!
>> As a receiver manufacturer looking for better 10g amplifier solutions,
>> it becomes clear very quickly that good IC's for anything above 10g
>> are simply not readily available, while 10g components are receiving
>> considerable attention from several suppliers, and are in fact
>> acceptable sensitivity performance at both 850 and 1310nm.
>> Although the needs for FEC will be addressed by speciality products,
>> this certainly will not be the main stream, and also will not reach
>> structure necessary for a viable product on the anticipated timeline.
>> The most elegant, cost-effective, and especially, timely solution will
>> exploit those components that are already being developed for related
>> applications (OC-192).
>> Common sense is a good thing.
>> Janis Valdmanis
>> Picometrix Inc.
>> (734) 998-4502