Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
All,
If we decide to include in our reach objectives Long Haul (e.g. 1000 km with
optical amps placed at 80 Km spacing) and Ultra Long Haul (e.g. 3000 Km with
optical amps at 80 Km spacing, without Optical-Electrical-Optical
regeneration), we need to keep in mind that modulation/encoding/FEC choices
play an important role in how far we can go on an optical amplifier based
line system. Such PMD designs may be too costly for our < 80Km
applications/objectives so we may end up with more PMDs.
While there are some examples of Routers / Switches which have LH or ULH
optical interfaces built in, most systems use Routers / Switches with
shorter reach interfaces connected to separate Transport Chassis that house
proprietary LH or ULH solutions. As far as I know the LH and ULH world does
not have interoperable standard solutions today in terms of the signaling on
the fiber.
My input for our activities in HSSG is to optimize for cost and not require
that one of our PMDs be directly useable as part of a LH or ULH line system
(unless that is doable without incremental cost).
Having said that, I believe we should debate the need to address "ease of
HSSG data transport" on top of existing and emerging LH and ULH transport
systems. If this debate already happened as part of the 10G 802.3 standard
development and the conclusions apply here, perhaps somebody can educate
those of us who were not involved at that time.
Thanks,
Menachem
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek@SPRINT.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:50 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Objectives
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
>
>
>
>
>