Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
John Jaeger is exactly right in underscoring that most important in the
40GE SMF reach objective discussion is coming to a quick decision. The
suggestion to make this decision at the March meeting is a good one.
If the 802.3ba Task Force decides to add a 40GE SMF reach objective, the
additional workload to write the standard will be moderate. Just as
development of a 40GE SMF PMD will highly leverage the existing 10GE
technology, so will specification writing highly leverage 10GE-LR and
LX4 standards. There appears to be a consensus on the approach, so no
technical controversies are expected.
If the 802.3ba Task Force decides not to add a 40GE SMF reach objective,
a likely scenario will be as described by Brad Booth in his last
reflector email. Specifically, optics vendors will develop a
non-standards based PMD to satisfy market demand. The development of a
40GE SMF PMD leverages the huge investment made in 10GE technology, so
makes it desirable from an ROI perspective. This is not the preferred
path, but one that will likely be taken if there is no standard because
of favorable economics.
P.S. For those that have not gone back to nicholl_01_0507, I suggest you
take a few minutes to take a look. It is almost spooky how accurately
the presentation outlines what is happening.
From: John Jaeger [mailto:jjaeger@IEEE.ORG]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Barbieri (abarbier) [mailto:abarbier@CISCO.COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 11:31 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
> 40G is absolutely incremental as it is a path to upgrade 10G links for
> the more cost driven part of the market. Hadn't we had 40G, most users
> would have continued happily with nx10G links.
Now there's an idea I could get behind (again). Happy 4x10G LAG
sounds good to me too. But that would be back tracking the group even
Hope that no one is really surprised that this discussion is taking
as this exact scenario was discussed on multiple occasions last March,
and May. It was only a matter of when it would take place, not if.
presentation in Geneva and the 28 supporters who signed onto it clearly
spelled this out
So since we are here, my hope is that the Ad-hoc presentations & calls
continue to get the data out for discussion, the reflector dialog
to debate the more interesting points, and that we get a complete airing
discussion of the topic in the March meeting so that with a decision
way sooner rather than later, we can all focus our efforts on the task
hand; proposals and baseline selections for a draft standard.