nanog mailing list archives
RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE
From: "Chris Cole" <chris.cole () finisar com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:37:59 -0800
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/
Current thread:
- IEEE 40GE & 100GE Bora Akyol (Dec 11)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Leigh Porter (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Justin M. Streiner (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Wayne E. Bouchard (Dec 14)
- RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Chris Cole (Dec 14)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Deepak Jain (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 12)
- SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE) Alex Pilosov (Dec 12)
- Re: SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE) Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Deepak Jain (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 12)
- RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 12)
- RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Chris Cole (Dec 13)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Stephen Sprunk (Dec 13)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Owen DeLong (Dec 13)
- RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Chris Cole (Dec 13)