| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I agree with Brad that at the July meeting
we need to focus on making the right process choice for moving forward with 100G
and 40G standards. Which means it is not helpful to continue to
question 100G or 40G Broad Market Potential. For 100G, a clear and immediate need has been
shown by a broad range of end users and equipment suppliers for data center and
core interconnect. A clear case has also been made that a lower data rate does
not address these needs. Those continuing to raise objections to 100G Broad
Market Potential should show that the presented growth of core data traffic is
wrong, or explain how an alternative other then 100G Ethernet will effectively
handle that data traffic. Simply continuing to express dissatisfaction is not
credible. Those questioning 100G Broad Market
Potential as an HSSG tactic because it is not packaged with 40G should state
that, so it is clear that it is not an issue of meeting 802 Criteria. That way
we can focus on the process and not on meeting the Five Criteria. For 40G, a clear picture of Broad Market
Potential has also been drawn. Equipment suppliers have outlined a transition
to 40G for server interconnect in the 2012 time frame, with a few leading edge
applications like HPC in the 2009 time frame. This explains why few end users
have presented in the HSSG in support of 40G. Their immediate and near term
needs are figuring out a cost-effective solution for 10G switch-server
interconnect, and deploying 100G for switch-switch interconnect. Until they
solve these problems, they will not need 40G switch-server interconnect. However,
it is not uncommon for suppliers to anticipate and drive a future need; a lot
of new technology is introduced this way. This increases the risks to the
suppliers, but that is not an IEEE concern. So given where end users are today, it’s
best to stop asking to see multiple HSSG end user presentations supporting 40G demand.
This is a case of suppliers being ahead of most end users in anticipating
future needs. At the July meeting, the HSSG needs to
choose an alternative for moving forward. The choices are: 1) separate 100G and
40G Task Forces, 2) single 100G and 40G Task Force, 3) single 100G Task Force
and 40G Study Group. There are a few issues that need to be examined in detail to
make the choice, such as amount of effort required with each alternative, the
urgency of having a standard, likely technology, market windows, and others to
be identified. If during the July meeting we do not
choose an alternative, it is likely that consensus can not be reached with
additional time. At that point there will be little reason for a fourth
extension; we should let the HSSG end, and submit two new CFIs for; 1) 100G
Study Group, 2) 40G Study Group. To continue to discuss process choices past
July will not be a good use of time. Chris From: Brad Booth
[mailto:bbooth@AMCC.COM] Dear HSSG
Members, |