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

Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern

I like the analogy as well. Following your arguments below it would appear that you are suggesting two possible options to move forward:
1) kill the Smart car (expensive sedan) from the product line and replace it with a family sedan (luxury SUV)
2) add a family sedan (luxury SUV) to the existing product line
Is my understanding correct ?
Gary ...

From: Dove, Daniel [mailto:dan.dove@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:39 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern


I think the issue is one of volumes.
Lacking data, I am getting the impression that the 100m is actually an expensive sedan and 150m is a luxury SUV.
Perhaps you can provide a chart that shows the distribution of lengths and the relative costs associated with them, and we can use that as the basis for further understanding? I know that this data has been presented in various presentations, but a nice succinct chart would be helpful.


From: Swanson, Steven E [mailto:SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:38 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern

You know me - I like analogies; I seem to remember using airplanes as an example during the development of 10GbE, something like comparing 747s to regional jets. I also like automobiles so let give you my take on where we are at as it relates to 802.3ba.
I agree that the bulk of automobile product line only has 5 passenger capacity. However, how many cars will you see this morning on the way to work will have five people in them? Very few - most will have one and some will have two. Using the 802.3ba philosophy, we would standardize a two-seater since that is what the majority of the market needs. We would ignore the typical sedan which gives broader market coverage at maybe, just maybe a small premium. I view the XR variant as the typical sedan.
We have an objective for Scooters - 10m of copper - just get me from here to there at the lowest cost
We have an objective for a Smart car - 100m of MMF - good enough for most commuters
We have an objective for a Greyhound bus - 10km of SMF
We have an objective for a turbo-charged Greyhound bus (or a John Madden luxury liner or a 747) - 40km of SMF)
But we have ignored the family sedan that provides broader coverage at a reasonable cost. Our argument is that it is not large enough or doesn't warrant the extra cost. I see 10-20% of a lot of ports as much, much bigger than 100% of hardly any ports (albeit expensive ones). I don't hear anyone talking about how small the 40km SMF market is.
I still don't get it.
Best regards,

From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:40 PM
To: Swanson, Steven E
Cc: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern

At 06:35 PM 8/25/2008 , Swanson, Steven E wrote:
What should we tell our customers who have link lengths longer than 100m and want (or require) a standardized solution?

We should tell them the same thing that we tell our twisted pair customers.

That would be that their market is not large enough to:
  - Warrant a separate solution in the standard.
  - Burden the 100 meter solution with the extra costs required to meet their needs

There is nothing terrible or onorous about this. A line has to be drawn for all volume products. For passenger automobiles, the standard is clearly 5 passengers. Does a car salesman have to make excuses that the bulk of his product line only has a 5 passenger capacity? Of course not. Do some car companies think they can make money with larger vehicles? Of course.