Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
I agree. The limits that were posted are fine with me.
Aaron Dudek
(703) 689-6879
Sprintlink Engineering
adudek@sprint.net
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Geoff Thompson wrote:
> Aaron-
>
> My personal opinion (which may or may not correlate to the opinion of my
> employer) is that ultra long haul (ULH) will come into the conversation in
> due course. I don't think it is necessary up front.
>
> Some of the requirements are likely to be taken up by existing optical
> amplifiers and maybe even existing 3R repeaters (less likely).
>
> If a new regenrative repeater is considered to be necessary to extend the
> reach of what we have for shorter haul, then it is a nice small project that
> we can do separately (and perhaps a little later). Such a repeater was
> implicitly inferred by Joel and Steve and explicitly by me during the earlier
> discussion of regenerative link terminations with lower latency than you
> might be able to get with full decoding.
>
> (See my message: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:12:54 -0700, Re: [HSSG] HSSG MAC & PHY
> Options )
>
> Since I think that is a reasonable straightforward extension of what (I
> expect) we are going to do anyway, I don't think we have to make life more
> complicated by including it now.
>
> In the meantime, we can concentrate our discussions on reach objectives for a
> single link (although my opinion is that we shouldn't do anything radical in
> the long haul area).
>
> Geoff Thompson
>
>
> At 09:49 AM 8/22/2006 , Aaron Dudek wrote:
>> Geoff,
>> Shouldn't the migration to ULH systems have any impact on the spacing and
>> hence be taken into consideration? Or is that beyond the scope for now?
>>
>> Aaron Dudek
>> (703) 689-6879
>> Sprintlink Engineering
>> adudek@sprint.net
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>
>> > Roger-
>> > At 03:47 AM 8/22/2006 , Roger Merel wrote:
>> >
>> > Agree with Drew. Have a few additional comments on other reachs:
>> >
>> > For reach objectives, we should start with customer based needs
>> > (for broad market potential) and only amend if an
>> > obvious technical limitation with compelling economics can t
>> > readily meet the broad customer need.
>> >
>> > Specifically:
>> >
>> > - Long Reach probably should be set at 80km rather than 100km (as
>> > this is the common hut-to-hut amplifier spacing
>> > in telecom)
>> >
>> > - While 50m does serve a useful portion of the market (smaller
>> > datacenters and/or the size of a large computer
>> > cluster), it is somewhat constraining as I ve been lead to
>> > understand that the reach needed in larger datacenters
>> > is continuing to out-grow the 100m meter definition but the 100m
>> > definition at least serves the customer well.
>> > Certainly 10G-BaseT worked awfully hard to get to 100m (for
>> > Datacenter interconnect).
>> >
>> > I wouldn't attach a lot of creedence to the 10GBASE-T goal for 100
>> > meters. It was, I believe, mainly driven by the
>> > traditional distance in horizontal (i.e. wiring closet to desktop)
>> > distances rather than any thorough examination of data
>> > center requirements.
>> > Geoff
>> >
>> > - For both in-building reaches (50m & 300m; or 100m & 300m), the
>> > bigger issue which affects the PMD is the loss
>> > budget arising from the number of patch panels. The shorter /
>> > datacenter reach should include a budget for 1
>> > patch panel. The longer / enterprise reach should include a
>> > budget for 2 patch panels (one in the datacenter and
>> > 1 in the remote switch closet).
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Drew Perkins [mailto:dperkins@INFINERA.COM]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:24 AM
>> > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>> > Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
>> >
>> >
>> > John,
>> >
>> >
>> > I suggest dividing Metro into Metro Short Reach at 10 km
>> > (equivalent application to 10GBASE-LR) and Metro
>> > Intermediate Reach at 40 km (equivalent application to
>> > 10GBASE-ER).
>> >
>> >
>> > Drew
>> >
>> > _____________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > Drew Perkins
>> >
>> > Chief Technology Officer
>> >
>> > Infinera Corporation
>> >
>> > 1322 Bordeaux Drive
>> >
>> > Sunnyvale, CA 94089
>> >
>> >
>> > Phone: 408-572-5308
>> >
>> > Cell: 408-666-1686
>> >
>> > Fax: 408-904-4644
>> >
>> > Email: dperkins@infinera.com
>> >
>> > WWW : http://www.infinera.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _____________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________________ ________________
>> > From: John DAmbrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@FORCE10NETWORKS.COM]
>> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:38 PM
>> > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>> > Subject: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
>> >
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > We have had some conversation on the reflector regarding reach
>> > objectives. Summarizing what has been discussed
>> > on the reflector I see the following
>> >
>> >
>> > Reach Objectives
>> >
>> > Long-Haul --> 100+ km
>> >
>> > Metro --> 10+ km
>> >
>> > Data Center --> 50m & 300m
>> >
>> >
>> > Data Center Reach Segregation
>> >
>> > Intra-rack
>> >
>> > Inter-rack
>> >
>> > Horizontal runs
>> >
>> > Vertical risers
>> >
>> >
>> > Use this data to identify a single low-cost solution that would
>> > address a couple of the reach objectives
>> >
>> >
>> > Other Areas
>> >
>> > During the course of the CFI there were individuals who wanted
>> > Backplane Applications kept in for consideration,
>> > but I have not heard any further input in this area. Are there
>> > still individuals who wish to propose Backplane
>> > as an objective?
>> >
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>
>