|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.
From: Brad Booth