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 ------ Forwarded Message From: Chris Cole <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM> Reply-To: Chris Cole <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:21:31 -0800 To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Conversation: [HSSG] Reach Ad Hoc Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Ad Hoc 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:amoorwood@EXTREMENETWORKS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:03 AM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 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 ------ End of Forwarded Message
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 <bora.akyol@aprius.com> 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 <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM> Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Ad Hoc To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:21:31 -0800 Reply-To: Chris Cole <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM>
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:amoorwood@EXTREMENETWORKS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:03 AM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 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
----------
Another nice feature would be cheap cheap optics with say 500M-1KM reach for inter-floor connects. -- Leigh 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.
---Rob
Bora Akyol <bora.akyol@aprius.com> 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 <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM> Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Ad Hoc To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:21:31 -0800 Reply-To: Chris Cole <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM>
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:amoorwood@EXTREMENETWORKS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:03 AM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 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
----------
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 <bora.akyol@aprius.com> 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 <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM> Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Ad Hoc To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:21:31 -0800 Reply-To: Chris Cole <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM>
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:amoorwood@EXTREMENETWORKS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:03 AM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 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
----------
"Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org> writes:
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.
That's a really good point, and one which I didn't originally consider pre-coffee. :-) Link budget information on page 4, here: http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/reach/Matsumoto_r1_1207.pdf Relative cost estimates on page 5. Suppositions for ingredients to link budget are here: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/hssg/public/nov07/cole_01_1107.pdf (page 3) I'm kind of looking longingly at that extra 3dB, given the slight marginal extra cost and my knowledge of the trained chimp quality mechanical splices that are rife in certain <cough> data centers. ---Rob
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Link budget information on page 4, here: http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/reach/Matsumoto_r1_1207.pdf Relative cost estimates on page 5.
(totally disregarding the HSSG policy of talking cost and not price here) If the cost estimate has any bearing on actual end-user purchase price, then I would say that the 3-4km reach alternative makes sense. Having a 10km reach alternative costing 60% of 40km reach optics just doesn't make sense. Today we live in a world where 10km reach optics is ~1/4 the price of 40-80km optics, what's being said in that table is that the 40km reach optics cost 2.1x of the 3km one. The 40km optics would cost 1.6x the 10km one. Since cost of keeping spares and considering the operational expense of bringing up links with beforementioned bad connectors etc, it might even be rational to just go with 40km optics at this cost difference level. Different optics variants need to have a distinct price difference, otherwise they're just complicating things. Otoh if we need attenuators for 40km optics on 5km links then that's a complicating factor as well. That's not been needed before. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
I have three practical uses for 40G at present... First and most obvious is router to router. In this case, if the routers are in the same cage, there's little reason to want to be able to push more than 100 feet. (The same applies to aggregation switches and similar.) The second use is links around a campus. Now we're pushing distances. ESPECIALLY when you consider budgets due to patch losses and so on. In this case, 3-4km is probably still adequate for me in most cases. (Equinix's DC area will probably work with 3km as long as they don't take it through 8 patch panels before they get to you. DC3 is the only one to be concerned about because of the added inter-building distance.) The third use for this is across a metro area. (Lets face it, it's hard to find a good amount of space in any one location.) In this case, in most areas, I have a need to use DWDM. I would still need to do this on dark fiber since some locations can quite easily push more than 40 gigs back to the core. So I either double my fiber costs and buy two pair to each location or I use DWDM. So now the concern is when my DWDM vendor will be able to mux these together. That, above and beyond "how far can you push this?" If I've got a long run and no place to put an amplifier in the middle, even 10km may mean I'm SOL. So from my POV, I have a vested insterest in all three options and the relevant orders of magnitude between each one. For the sake of instroducing the technology, should it not persue the same path that 10GE did? That is, focus on the first condition with an eye to the second and add the third once you've got the problems with the first two worked out? On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 06:27:55AM -0500, 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.
---Rob
Bora Akyol <bora.akyol@aprius.com> 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 <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM> Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Ad Hoc To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:21:31 -0800 Reply-To: Chris Cole <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM>
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:amoorwood@EXTREMENETWORKS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:03 AM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 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
----------
--- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
The 100G 40km reach (the 40G in your email I am assuming is a type) will be a black/white code, and it will not support DWDM. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Wayne E. Bouchard [mailto:web@typo.org] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:42 AM To: Robert E. Seastrom Cc: Bora Akyol; nanog@merit.edu; Chris Cole Subject: Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE I have three practical uses for 40G at present... First and most obvious is router to router. In this case, if the routers are in the same cage, there's little reason to want to be able to push more than 100 feet. (The same applies to aggregation switches and similar.) The second use is links around a campus. Now we're pushing distances. ESPECIALLY when you consider budgets due to patch losses and so on. In this case, 3-4km is probably still adequate for me in most cases. (Equinix's DC area will probably work with 3km as long as they don't take it through 8 patch panels before they get to you. DC3 is the only one to be concerned about because of the added inter-building distance.) The third use for this is across a metro area. (Lets face it, it's hard to find a good amount of space in any one location.) In this case, in most areas, I have a need to use DWDM. I would still need to do this on dark fiber since some locations can quite easily push more than 40 gigs back to the core. So I either double my fiber costs and buy two pair to each location or I use DWDM. So now the concern is when my DWDM vendor will be able to mux these together. That, above and beyond "how far can you push this?" If I've got a long run and no place to put an amplifier in the middle, even 10km may mean I'm SOL. So from my POV, I have a vested insterest in all three options and the relevant orders of magnitude between each one. For the sake of instroducing the technology, should it not persue the same path that 10GE did? That is, focus on the first condition with an eye to the second and add the third once you've got the problems with the first two worked out? On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 06:27:55AM -0500, 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.
---Rob
Bora Akyol <bora.akyol@aprius.com> 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 <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM> Subject: Re: [HSSG] Reach Ad Hoc To: <STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:21:31 -0800 Reply-To: Chris Cole <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM>
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:amoorwood@EXTREMENETWORKS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:03 AM To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 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
----------
--- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
participants (7)
-
Bora Akyol -
Chris Cole -
Justin M. Streiner -
Leigh Porter -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Robert E. Seastrom -
Wayne E. Bouchard