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

Re: [802.3_NGECDC] Announcing NEA Ad Hoc call on Next-Gen MMF PMDs from noon to 1pm US Eastern time on 10/13 and 10/27



Robert,

 

In advance of the CFI meeting in Orlando, I would like to comment on the CFI wording. I fully support the work on NG MMF but cannot support the proposed wording of the motion. I am asking the group to consider modifying the wording to focus on 400 Gb/s PHYs over Fewer MMF Pairs than Existing Ethernet Projects and removing 200 Gb/s.

 

My rationale is as follows:

 

There is motivation to support a 400G solution over fewer pairs as an alternative to 400GBASE-SR16.

 

We are standardizing 200GBASE-SR4 in 802.3cd and there is no precedent for supporting a duplex solution at 200G – at least it was not supported at 40G or 100G – so why are we now thinking that it will be supported at 200G?

 

In IEEE 802.3ba, we defined 40GBASE-SR4; a proposal for a duplex solution was rejected by 802.3ba

·       It was noted that a 4 lane parallel short wavelength based PMD is the highest density, lowest power consumption and lowest cost 100m solution and I don’t think that has changed.

·       A straw poll to consider a duplex option yielded the result to develop a duplex based standard outside of 802.3ba by more than a 2 to 1 margin; several voted for the case that no duplex MMF solution was needed.

·       40GBASE-SR4 was adopted 85-0

 

In IEEE 802.3bm, we defined 100GBASE-SR4; a proposal for a duplex solution was not proposed in 802.3bm

·       100GBASE-SR4 approved

·       To my recollection, no 100G MMF duplex option was proposed

 

In IEEE 802.3cd, we are defining 100GBASE-SR2 and 200GBASE-SR4; a proposal for a duplex solution (100GBASE-SR1.2) was rejected by 802.3cd

·       Both a parallel and a duplex solution were considered in the 100G work

·       A straw poll showed support for the parallel solution over the duplex solution by a 3 to 1 margin

·       A subsequent motion to standardized the parallel solution passed by a 6 to 1 margin

 

There seems to be no reason to now support a duplex 200G solution when we have not standardized a duplex solution at 40G duplex nor a duplex solution at 100G.

 

Regarding the inclusion of OM5 in the CFI, I think it is a distraction that takes away from the main point of the CFI. It is clear that all perceived solutions can be supported on OM3 and OM4 and while some are purporting support for a 150m link length on OM5, this does not seem to be a requirement based on a poll in 802.3ba:

 

The goal for extending the reach on MMF should be:

A. at least 150m on OM3

B. at least 250m on OM4

C. both A and B

D. at least 200m on OM4

E. both A and D

F. there should be no goal for extended reach

 

Result:

A: 7

B: 3

C: 5

D: 1

E: 0

F: 27

 

It is for this reason that I would remove the slides on OM5; the inclusion of a 200G solution seems like an attempt to legitimize a certain transceiver/fiber combination (4 wavelength SWDM over OM5) when it is not really needed.

 

So, to summarize, I will fully support the CFI if it is worded as follows:

 

Motion at Closing Plenary:

Move that the IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group authorizes the formation of a study group to develop a Project Authorization Request (PAR) and Criteria for Standards Development (CSD) responses for "Next-generation 400 Gb/s PHYs over Fewer MMF Pairs than Existing Ethernet Projects"

 

I will withdraw my support of the CFI if it is worded as follows:

 

Motion at Closing Plenary:

Move that the IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group authorizes the formation of a study group to develop a Project Authorization Request (PAR) and Criteria for Standards Development (CSD) responses for "Next-generation 200 Gb/s and 400 Gb/s PHYs over Fewer MMF Pairs than Existing Ethernet Projects"

 

Best regards,

 

Steve

 

 

Steven E. Swanson

Senior Standards Manager

Distinguished Associate

 

Global Technology & Industry Standards

MT&E

Corning Optical Communications

800 17th Street NW

Hickory, NC 28603-0489

 

t   828-901-5328

t   607-974-5757

m 607-725-1129

 

swansonse@xxxxxxxxxxx

 

Standards are a bridge between markets and technologies; whoever controls the bridge controls the future…

 

From: Lingle, Robert L (Robert) [mailto:rlingle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 4:52 PM
To: STDS-802-3-NGECDC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_NGECDC] Announcing NEA Ad Hoc call on Next-Gen MMF PMDs from noon to 1pm US Eastern time on 10/13 and 10/27

 

All,

 

We will hold two telecons related to Next-Gen MMF PMDs from Noon to 1pm Eastern US time on Friday October 13th and Friday October 27th.

 

The agenda for the first call will be to discuss the wording of a motion to authorize a Study Group to be made at the closing Plenary in Orlando.

We will also discuss any final tweaks to the CFI deck.

 

The second call will only be held if there is any business not finished on the first call.

 

Call-in and web information below

 

Level (3)

 

Click below and we will call you to join the meeting:

 

Audio & Web Meeting

 

- Or -

 

1. Dial-In:

    - BRAZIL: 08008916743
    - CANADA: 8007682983
    - CHINA UNIFIED: 8008700602
    - DENMARK: 80703123
    - GERMANY: 08000004390
    - INDIA: 18002090185
    - IRELAND: 1800944107
    - ISRAEL: 1809246050
    - JAPAN: 00531190033
    - UNITED KINGDOM: 08004960980
    - UNITED STATES: 8007682983
    - UNITED STATES (Toll): 2122313884
2. Enter Access Code: 7985015

 

3. Web Login: https://core.callinfo.com/prt?an=8007682983&ac=7985015

 

Click here for a list of global toll-free numbers

 

 

Robert Lingle, Jr., Ph.D.
Director, Market & Technology Strategy

OFS Logo - RGB

Your Optical Fiber Solutions Partner™

2000 Northeast Expy | Norcross, GA 30071
Office: 770-798-5015
Mobile: 404-886-3581