|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I appreciate your affirmation of my concerns. Just so that it is clear, I am totally open to a 40G standard if the issues I have raised are addressed.
I am honestly hoping that those who strongly support a 40G proposal will use this list (and their own lists) to craft a solid and complete plan for July so that we can advance two PARs out of that meeting. There are issues to be addressed, and there will be some untrodden ground that needs to be understood, but I believe its doable and really hope that the HSSG comes together to solve both distinct market needs.
From: Wenbin Jiang [mailto:Wenbin.Jiang@JDSU.COM]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [HSSG] The List
I agree with Dan. Especially, the economic feasibility and distinct identity of 40GE have not yet been demonstrated.
Assuming 100GE will proceed, I am not convinced on the broad market potential of 40GE either. Alternative technology is suffiient to cover the low volume need before 2012, and by then, 100GE will have already taken off to meet the market demand as perceived by the 40GE.
JDSU Transmission Module BU
I committed to offering up my perspective on what has not been done (and should be done) in order to proceed with a 40G PAR in the July timeframe.
This list is subject to review, consideration, and revision if I have either missed something or included something that does not belong. Some of the determinations made are subjective, and you may disagree with my conclusion. This is also worthy of discussion and resolution via concensus. I have run it by people on both sides of the discussion and made amendments per their feedback. If you have additional feedback, please recognize that I am trying to be fair and willing to consider your feedback.
When it is all said and done, this is *my* list and not the HSSG's list. If the HSSG does not agree with me, then I will gladly accept the consensus of the group. I based this on the history of presentations and motions made in the HSSG and my experience working in 802.3 over the last 20+ years. There is no defined roadmap, but I think it should help us to reach an agreement on how to proceed.
I should mention that when I say "Not Done" relative to a motion, this means "not made and passed by a necessary majority".
Motion to add 40G to HSSG Objectives (Not Done)
Demonstration of Broad Market Potential (Done)
Motion that HSSG has demonstrated 40G Broad Market Potential (Not Done)
Demonstration of Technical Feasibility (Done)
Motion that HSSG has demonstrated 40G Technical Feasibility (Not Done)
Economic Feasibility (Not Done)
-- 40G cost/performance vs 4x10G LAG cost/performance (Incomplete)
-- I believe a good presentation on this subject would show the relative performance of 40G to 4x10G LAG in quantitative terms. The latency comparison was a start, but please show how this translates to protocol/system performance. I believe we need to see a substantial performance benefit given the cost differential is minimal.
Motion that HSSG has demonstrated 40G Economic Feasibility (Not Done)
Distinct Identity (Not Done)
-- Show why the 2.5X cost/performance difference justifies a project.
-- 40G functionally distinct from 4x10G LAG? (Done)
-- How will the HSSG address 40G 10Km and 40Km links and would their addition undermine distinct identity? (Not Done)
-- HSSG position on OTN rate and WAN PMD (Not Done)
Motion that HSSG has demonstrated 40G Distinct Identity (Not Done)
Motion to Adopt 40G PAR proposal (Not Done)
Motion to Adopt compatibility criterion proposal (Not Done)
Motion to Adopt distinct identity criterion proposal (Not Done)
Motion to Adopttechnical feasibility criterion proposal (Not Done)
Motion to Adopt economic feasibility criterion proposal (Not Done)
Motion to Adopt broad market criterion proposal (Not Done)
I hope at a
minimum that this clarifies my concern in
If there are any remaining items to be completed to forward a 100G PAR, please respond with your input as we should try to get both proposals ready to forward for the July meeting. Since the March meeting , I see no additional work required beyond the formal motions needed to forward the PAR.
ProCurve Networking by HP