|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
One of the form factor has been discussed for 40Gig is QSFP which is only about 0.7x0.4".
Do you think you can get 4 RJ-45 in this form factor and dissipate <3.5W for Quad10GBaseT PHY?
Bill Woodruff wrote:
Mikael, 10GBASE-T is 100m over Cat6a or Cat7, or 55m over Cat6. this is with 4 connectors; a full cross-connect topology per ISO-IEC-11801. I believe in most cases, the cabling will be field terminatable. The 10GBASE-T PHY supplier community will be aggressively driving power lower, from a baseline of growing volumes. If your desire is to see a copper interconnect that works with structured cabling of more than 10 to 20m, and a cross-connect model with patch panels, then LAG with four 10GBASE-T links is a viable and available choice. The definition of 'acceptable' for any 40G solution need to be in the context of the interconnect requirements, the target platform, and the full chip set in that platform. I'm sure this community can identify an optimized 40GE solution, with 4X 10GBASE-T LAG as a existing option for comparison. Regards, Bill Bill Woodruff, (c) 408 582-2311 Aquantia - VP Marketing, 408 228-8300 x202 -----Original Message----- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@SWM.PP.SE] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:04 PM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Ali Ghiasi wrote:I know there is readily available solution based on QSFP that could do40G copper with twin-ax cables. Copper solution are very attractive for sub-10m as they offer order of magnitude cost advantage. Longer reach cable not as attractive as you have to use heavier gage which increase the cable size, weight, cost, and the complexity of receiverincreases. Well, my idea was to compare 4*10GE LAG and whatever 40GE solution is being proposed. I understand now I should have written this outright, sorry. My thoughts were that operational cost and CAPEX of doing 4*10GE LAG using 10GBASE-T for servers would be quite a lot lower than any new proposed 40GE solution, since I only saw coaxial and fiber proposed for 40GE physical media. Or have I misunderstood 10GBASE-T when it comes to power and reach (100M over CAT7 or ~50 on CAT6)? Does it require a lot more power than fiber based solution? From a pure end-user perspective CAT6-7 based cabling has the lowest operational cost (physical only) since it's abundant and there is a lot of experience with that kind of cabling. But perhaps it uses a lot more power than the other proposed solutions for 40GE?
begin:vcard fn:Ali Ghiasi n:Ghiasi;Ali org:Broadcom;HSIP adr;dom:;;3151 Zanker Road;San Jose;CA;95014 email;internet:firstname.lastname@example.org title:Chief Architect tel;work:(408)922-7423 tel;cell:(949)290-8103 version:2.1 end:vcard