1 / 23

Higher Speed Ethernet Update

Higher Speed Ethernet Update. Greg Hankins <ghankins@force10networks.com> Global Peering Forum 2.0. GPF 2.0 2007 2007/03/29. Per IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, January 2005.

gbaird
Download Presentation

Higher Speed Ethernet Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Higher Speed Ethernet Update Greg Hankins <ghankins@force10networks.com> Global Peering Forum 2.0 GPF 2.0 2007 2007/03/29

  2. Per IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, January 2005 At lectures, symposia, seminars, or educational courses, an individual presenting information on IEEE standards shall make it clear that his or her views should be considered the personal views of that individual rather than the formal position, explanation, or interpretation of the IEEE.

  3. Higher Speed Ethernet -Technology Pull, Not Push • Many different networks are asking for 100 GbE today • IXs • ISPs • Content providers • Financial • R&E and HPCC • Already getting media attention and mention by C-level execs • Participation by end users has never been this high in the IEEE before • Presentations at meetings given by individuals from: AMS-IX, Comcast, DT, EDS, Equinix, Google, LBNL, NTT America, NYSE, Sprint, Time Warner, T-Systems, Yahoo! • Over 30 individuals contributing and supporting presentations • Thanks for your support

  4. Higher Speeds Drive Density(or, Why Should I Care?) • 100 GbE will benefit everyone • Even if you don’t need it • Drives a fundamental advance in technology • Drives 10 GbE port density up and cost down • Possible line-rate combinations • 1 x 100 GbE port • 10 x 10 GbE ports • 100 x 1 GbE ports • And even more oversubscribed port density… • Your bandwidth requirements and port densities are growing, not shrinking

  5. Birth of an IEEE Standard:It Takes About 5 Years Ideas From Industry Industry Pioneering 1 Year Feasibility and Research Ad Hoc Efforts Call for Interest CFI July 18, 2006 Study Group HSSG is Here Task Force Q4 2007? Working Group Ballot Sponsor Ballot Standards Board Approval 2009 – 2010? IEEE ~4 Years Publication

  6. HSSG Focus PHY objectives • Types • Reaches MAC data rate objective and architectural issues MDI - Medium Dependant Interface PCS - Physical Coding Sublayer PHY - Physical Layer Device PMA - Physical Medium Attachment PMD - Physical Medium Dependent WIS - WAN Interface Sublayer XGMII - 10 Gigabit Media Independent Interface IEEE Std 802.3-2005

  7. Next Step: Becoming a Task Force (The Good) • Write a Project Authorization Request (PAR) • PAR A working draft created at January meeting • Vote for chair to present PAR A to IEEE 802.3WG at the July Plenary • Answer the 5 Criteria for PAR A • Broad Market Potential: √ (59 / 5 / 12) • Compatibility: √ • Distinct Identity: √ • Technical Feasibility: √ • Economic Feasibility: √ • HSSG request to extend SG lifetime again • SGs only exist for 6 months • 2nd extension granted after March Plenary

  8. PAR A Working Draft Objectives All: All people in the room, 802.3: Registered 802.3 voters

  9. More Objectives: Copper? (The Bad?) • Several presentations have been given supporting a copper objective • Technical and economic feasibility • 5m – 10m reach • Some interest in adding copper as an objective • Straw poll: 34 / 15 / 36 • Currently does not meet >= 75% criteria • May be under consideration for PAR A or a separate PAR

  10. More Objectives: 40 Gb/s?(The Ugly) • Growing support for a 40 Gb/s rate for server applications • January Interim: 22 / 33 / 21 • March Interim: 35 / 33 / 20 • Positioned as a server interconnect technology • Servers do not need 100 GbE today • Aligns with 16 x PCIe2 bus speed • 100m MMF, copper and backplane reaches • Supported by individuals from component vendors, Intel, Sun, IBM • Others at Dell, HP and IBM only want 100 GbE • Little end user support • May be under consideration for PAR A or a separate PAR

  11. Impact of 40 GbE on HSSG and 100 GbE • Some delay is anticipated • Time needed to accommodate 40 GbE objective • This also includes figuring out co-existence of the two speeds • Increased scope and change for slippage • Expected that 40 GbE and 100 GbE standards would be available at about the same times • Options • Let HSSG voters decide • Compromise and allow market to decide • 40 Gb/s MSA outside of IEEE • Politics are in play, this is not a logical argument

  12. Impact of 40 GbE on System Vendors • Board design is a lengthy and expensive process • FPGA: 6 – 12 months • $2.5M –$5M development costs • ASIC: 9 – 18 months (it takes 3 months just to make a chip) • $7.5M – $10M development costs • We have to stop work on 100 GbE or work on it in parallel • Everyone has limited resources • Delays 100 GbE • We’d rather put effort into 100 GbE and deliver something faster in about the same time • Dual-rate line cards • Costs everyone more • You pay for a 100 GbE line card and run it at a lower speed • Assumes there is some auto-negotiation of speeds • Component vendors face similar constraints • Impacts components available to us to build stuff for you

  13. Impact of 40 GbE on the Gear • 40 GbE switches need an uplink technology • This would likely be 100 GbE • Multiple port combinations will be required • 10 GbE and 40 GbE • GbE, 10 GbE and 40 GbE • 40 GbE and 100 GbE • 10 GbE, 40 GbE and 100 GbE • Several possible fiber and copper combinations for each speed

  14. Impact of 40 GbE on the Market • Will make both technologies more expensive because of volume and market split • Confusion in the marketplace about mass adoption • Delay buying to see who wins and what turns out cheaper • 40 GbE would need to be • Cheaper than 4 x 10 GbE LAG • Available much sooner than 100 GbE • But data from Intel indicates two years between server needs for 40 GbE and something faster • Are people going to deploy 10 GbE, then 40 GbE, then 100 GbE to servers? • 10GBaseT standard in 2006 • Just now starting to see lots of 10 GbE NICs on the market • Probably would go straight to 100 GbE instead of spending money on a slower technology

  15. What’s Next?April Meeting Agenda • 40km 100 GbE reach objective • Technical feasibility? • Economic feasibility? • 40 Gb/s MAC rate • Add as an objective? • Economic feasibility? • Broad Market Potential? • What reaches? • Copper • Add as an objective? • Motions have to be made in April • Finalize PARs

  16. IEEE 802.3 HSSG Reflector and Web Page • To subscribe to the HSSG reflector, send mail to <ListServ@ieee.org> with the following in the body of the message: subscribe stds-802-3-hssg <your first name> <your last name> end (over 460 people have subscribed to the list) • HSSG web page has links to all presentations: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/hssg/index.html

  17. Future HSSG Meetings • IEEE 802.3 Interims • http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/interims/index.html • April 17 – 19, 2007 • Ottawa, Canada • May 28 – 31, 2007 • Geneva, Switzerland • IEEE 802 Plenary • July 16 – 19, 2007 • San Francisco, CA, USA

  18. Thank You

  19. Overview of IEEE 802.3 Standards Process (1/5)- Study Group Phase Idea 802EC Form SG 802 ECApprove No No Check Point Check Point Call for Interest Yes Yes Study Group Meetings NesComApprove No Check Point Objectives 802.3Form SG Yes Yes 5 Criteria PAR SASB Approve Approved PAR Yes No RIP 802.3Approve No No Yes Check Point Check Point Note: At "Check Point", either the activity is ended, or there may be various options that would allow reconsideration of the approval.

  20. Overview of IEEE 802.3 Standards Process (2/5) - Task Force Comment Phase Approved PAR D1.0 No Task Force Meetings Task Force Review To 802.3 WG Ballot Objectives Yes D1.(n+1) D2.0 Proposals Selected Yes TF Review Done A No Yes No

  21. Overview of IEEE 802.3 Standards Process (3/5) - Working Group Ballot Phase A 802.3 Forward to Sponsor Ballot 802.3 WG BALLOT No D2.(n+1) A TF Resolves Comments Yes Substantive Changes Yes 802 EC Forward to Sponsor Ballot No A No In Scope New Negatives Yes Yes D3.0 No > 75% Yes B Notes: At "Check Point", either the activity is ended, or there may be various options that would allow reconsideration of the approval. See 802.3 Operating Rules 7.1.4 and listed references for complete description Check Point No

  22. Overview of IEEE 802.3 Standards Process (4/5)- Sponsor Ballot Phase B 802.3 Forward to RevCom LMSC Sponsor BALLOT No B D3.(n+1) TF Resolves Comments Yes Substantive Changes Yes 802 EC Forward to RevCom No B No In Scope New Negatives Yes Yes C No > 75% Yes Notes: At "Check Point", either the activity is ended, or there may be various options that would allow reconsideration of the approval. See 802.3 Operating Rules 7.1.5 and listed references for complete description Check Point No

  23. Overview of IEEE 802.3 Standards Process (5/5) - Final Approvals / Standard Release C Approved Draft RevCom Review Publication Preparation RevCom Approval No B Yes Standard SASB Approval Yes No Notes: At "Check Point", either the activity is ended, or there may be various options that would allow reconsideration of the approval. Check Point

More Related