Re: [802.3BA] 802.3ba XR ad hoc next step concern
Well, it is all relative - I am not sure what the cost
premium is from an expensive sedan and a luxury SUV.
Here is what we do know:
We know the costs of SR.
Jack Jewell presented the following economic feasibility
slide in the HSSG tutorial which shows a slight yield penalty for 12x
And Jack also presented cost estimates of an improved
transmitter in Munich:
This is the data that I presented in November of
Does that help?
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
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
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
We have an objective for a turbo-charged Greyhound
bus (or a John Madden luxury liner or a 747) - 40km of
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.
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
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
- 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.