Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE

From: Justin M. Streiner (no email)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 07:50:48 EST

  • Next message: Robert E. Seastrom: "Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE"

    On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

    > 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.

    I'm not in any of the Equinix facilities, but I do run a decent-sized
    urban campus network and a 3km-4km distance limitation would be cutting it
    really close for me in some cases. Some of the 10G links on my backbone
    today do require multiple physical cross-connects, which would eats into
    the link budget. Most of my backbone connections work find with 10G-LX4
    optics, but there are a few places where 10G-ER is needed.

    I haven't read the draft spec yet to see what's being proposed for a link
    budget at 3/4/10km, but that's just as important as the physical distance.

    jms

    > 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
    >>
    >> ----------
    >


  • Next message: Robert E. Seastrom: "Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD