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

Re: [HSSG] Soliciting Support for my Presentation

Hi Chris,

thanks for your email. I agree that only a constructive discussion
will move us forward.

I personally find it a pity that the HSSG could not agree on accepting
Howard's motion since the *technical concerns* that many of us had
regarding transport compatibility would have been addressed.

My personal impression is that those who voted 'NO' on that motion
still have other types of concerns such as investment costs into both 40G
and 100G, or the possible negative impact of 40G on 100G. I hope that
these can be somehow addressed at the July meeting.

Again, my impression is that the technical concerns regarding 40 GbE
have been taken care of.


Chris Cole wrote:" type="cite">



While I share some of your frustration with the lack of progress during this week’s HSSG meeting, and some of the individual points in your presentation, I do not support it. I am in disagreement with your Post-Debate Conclusions, and find their tone as not conducive to good discussion of the best way to move forward within the HSSG. I am aware of the passions generated during this week’s debate and understand why you wrote your presentation, but wish that it had not been sent out. I am confident that after your vacation travel in Europe with your family during the next week, you will return to your typical constructive approach to resolving difficult issues. I am also optimistic that you will take back your Post-Debate Conclusions, and return to your very reasonable Pre-Debate Conclusions. At that point, you can list me as one of your supporters. I am also hopeful that other supporters of your presentation will do the same.


Good discussion of how to move forward is critically dependant on acknowledging that 1) 100GE Broad Market Potential, and 2) 40GE Broad Market Potential have been established well above the threshold for 802.3 Five Criteria. Continued debate of this will only lead to delay in addressing the substantive issue of what is the best way to move forward in developing 100GE and 40GE standards. A possible framework for this discussion is outlined in “HSSG Next Steps Proposal” presentation that HSSG participants authorized as a post-deadline meeting submission.


An insight that has come out of the HSSG discussion of 100GE and 40GE rates during the past several months is that fundamental development cycles for new network equipment architectures and new server architectures appear to be different. A new data switch architecture development requires massive investment, which leads network equipment developers to want large jumps in data rate, like factors of 10x, to allow a return on that investment. An intermediate data rate causes an increase in the overall development investment, and a shortening of the useful life of network equipment which reduces the return on that investment.


Economics of server development appear to be different and more favorable to shorter development cycles, i.e. more frequent architecture changes. This drives the need for more granular jumps in data rate, like 4x. Ethernet has not done this historically, but that may be because protocols other then Ethernet were used to bridge the gap. Going forward, more granular Ethernet data rate steps may become the norm, rather then just a one time anomaly. This difference in development economics is also consistent with how often some end users replace servers versus networking equipment. It suggests that moving forward, network data rates may go from 10G to 100G to 1T, while server data rates go from 10G to 40G to 100G to 400G to 1T. This difference in data rate needs is not necessarily bad for either industry. More frequent server replacement may extend the useful life of network equipment (good for network equipment developers), and large jumps in network data rates assures availability of aggregation capacity to support multiple server cycles (good for server equipment developers.)


As we discuss how to best move forward with developing 100GE and 40GE standards, any approach needs to have the following two characteristics; 1) permits network equipment developers to have a single 100GE architecture, i.e. does not force them into developing a dual rate 100GE/40GE architecture, and 2) gives server equipment developers a 40GE server data rate. It may also need the recognition that some data rates are optimized for server interconnect and not intended for networking.


I look forward to a constructive discussion on how best to move both standards forward.



Subject: [HSSG] Soliciting Support for my Presentation

Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 05:25:12 -0000



Subsequent to yesterday's debate, I feel it is necessary to address some of the issues raised in a formally documented manner.


I have produced a presentation which I have requested authorization to present at today's meeting. If you support the content of this presentation, please reply back to me asap.


I am open to feedback as well.


Best Regards,

Dan Dove

Principal Engineer, LAN PHY Technology
Dove Networking Solutions - Serving ProCurve
916-785-4187 (Roseville Office)
530-389-9315 (Home Office)
530-906-3683 (Cell)


Marcus Duelk
Bell Labs / Alcatel-Lucent
Crawford Hill HOH R-237
791 Holmdel-Keyport Road
Holmdel, NJ 07733, USA
fon +1 (732) 888-7086
fax +1 (732) 888-7074