|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Do you have detailed analysis that you will be presentation for the power, relative cost, and link budget for the 10x10G lambda 1310nm solution for the 10km reach objective, and 10x10G lambda 1550nm solution for the 40km reach objective? This would help in understanding why you are assuming that these will be the first 100GE solutions.
For the 10x10G lambda 1310nm alternative, no one has indicated they are investigating this for either the 10km or 40km reach objectives. If you are planning on presenting this alternative, we will reflect that in the 100GE Technical Alternatives Table.
From: Ali Ghiasi [mailto:aghiasi@BROADCOM.COM]
I don't think we are saying the same thing but maybe we are not being specific enough.
I feel that the versions of the optical interface should be kept to a minimum (one per reach) to ensure interop. So we pick a number of wavelengths and then see evolution on the technologies from eml to dml as technology matures. The user has no interop issues. This is what we saw happen at 10GE LR.
I think we agree that the electrical interface will start at 10Gx10 and when that technology matures it may also move to a narrower faster interface. We saw this with XAUI to XFI and it is an implementation decision which did not affect user interop. XFP LR interops with XENPAK LR.
I see the electrical and optical interfaces as decoupled. One is an implemenation issue, the other is a interoperation issue.
For what it is worth, one goal of the CTBI proposal was to simplify these transitions.