From: Robert E. Seastrom (no email)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 06:27:55 EST
A practical question here: does anyone know offhand if 4km reach is
adequate for interbuilding access (i.e., DC[124] to DC3) access at
Equinix Ashburn, including worst-case interior wiring and cross
connects? I'm thinking that's cutting it close. The enterprise
people are substantially less likely to find themselves with a lot of
interconnections in a GCE (Ginormous Campus Environment) than we are,
and I suspect that skews the 90% number a bit. Folks who are more
familiar with the layout of other facilities may wish to chime in here.
---Rob
Bora Akyol <> writes:
> IEEE is seeking feedback from network operators etc on the reach
> requirements for 40GE & 100GE.
>
> If you have direct feedback to give, please contact Chris Cole directly
> (email address below).
>
> This is very important as it will directly impact how much you pay for those
> soon to be cherished 40 & 100 GE hardware in the future. I believe
> information on how many patch panel connections you expect the links to go
> through is also highly valued.
>
> Regards
>
> Bora
>
>
> From: Chris Cole <>
> Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Ad Hoc
> To: <>
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:21:31 -0800
> Reply-To: Chris Cole <>
>
> During the November HSSG meeting, optics vendors made a presentation
> proposing changing the 10km reach objective to 3km or 4km. One of my
> motivations for working on the proposal was informal input from a number
> of 100GE end users that >90% of their data center and short interconnect
> needs would be met by a reach objective less then 4km (versus 10km.)
> With such a reach distribution, a 4km or less optimized reach objective
> would result in overall cost savings.
>
> As part of the HSSG effort to review this proposal, numerous requests,
> both informal as well as from the HSSG chair and Reach Ad Hoc chair,
> have been made for contributions to quantify the 10km and under reach
> distribution. While the optics vendors as suppliers can accurately
> represent the relative costs of optics alternatives, they can not
> represent end user requirements.
>
> To date, we have seen no end user presentation or data supporting
> changing the 10km reach objective to 4km or less. Unless such
> contributions are forthcoming, it is likely that there will be no
> motivation to make the change. This sentiment can be seen in the 12/7
> Reach Ad Hoc conference call minutes.
>
> I would encourage any HSSG participant that views their volume 100GE SMF
> needs as better met by a 4km or shorter reach objective to make a
> contribution containing reach distribution data in support of this
> position. Otherwise we will move forward with the existing approved
> objectives.
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Andy Moorwood [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:03 AM
> To:
> Subject: [HSSG] Reach Ad Hoc
>
> Colleagues, the meeting notes from our call last week are now posted on
> the IEEE website
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/reach/MeetingNotes_r1_1207.pdf
> Thank you for your contributions
> Andy
>
> ----------
|
|
|