© 2013 Ethernet Alliance 1

Moderator Greg McSorley, AmphenolPanelists

Brad Booth, Dell Chris Cole, Finisar

Matt Traverso, Cisco

Trends in Interconnects & Integration

2© 2013 Ethernet Alliance© 2012 Ethernet Alliance

Gb Ethernet interconnects today

Passive Copper Cable Active Copper Cables Optical

10/100/1000M Category 5/6Coax

SC/LC MM OM1/2SC/LC SM

10Gb Category 6/7SFP+ DAC

SFP+ DAC LC MM OM1/2/3/4LC SM

40Gb QSFP+ DAC 40GBASE-CR4QSFP+ DAC

LC MM OM3/4LC SM

100Gb 10 x 10 CXP Direct Attach Twin AxCFP2 Direct Attach Twin Ax

•CFP2 LC MM OM3/4LC SM

100Gb 4 x 25 QSFP+ Direct •QSFP+ DAC•CFP4 DAC

LC MM OM3/4LC SM

DAC = Direct Attach Twin Ax Cable

3© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Panelists Brad Booth

Director, Network ArchitectureOffice of the CTO | Enterprise Solutions Group

Chris ColeDirector, Transceiver EngineeringFinisar Corporation

Matt TraversoEngineering ManagerTransceiver Module Group, CiscoMember Ethernet Alliance Board of Directors

4© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Optical vs. Copper Cost Comparison at 100GBrad BoothDirector, Network ArchitectureOffice of the CTO | Enterprise Solutions Group

5© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Focus of Cost Comparison

Area of Focus(Intra-rack)

Leaf or SpineSwitch

Top of Rack

Switch

6© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Assumptions

Intra-rack connections Maximum reach is 3 meters All PHYs or modules use a four lane, 25 Gb/s

interface All links support 100 Gigabit Ethernet

Cable Copper-based technologies cannot re-use existing

cables Optics would be able to use OM3/4 MMF or SMF

Extrapolation of costs Existing technologies used as basis

Not considered Board area Power

7© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Relative Cost Graph

8© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Multi-Link ModulesExtending DensityChris ColeDirector, Transceiver EngineeringFinisar Corporation

9© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

I/O Lane Densities

Does 10G Lane density stops at 10G? Does 40G Lane density stop at 40G?

I/O Lane Rate 0.625G 2.5G 10G 25G 50G

Year 1997 - 2000

2001 - 2004

2005 - 2008

2009 - 2012

2013 - 2016

2017 - 2020

10GbE 16x 4x (3G) 1x

40GbE 16x 4x 1x (40G)

100GbE 10x 4x 2x

400GbE 16x 8x

10© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Port Densities

Double Density SFP+: 48x 10GbE Smaller SFP+ (mSFP+) was not successful Is 48 the port limit for pluggable modules?

NO Multi-link I/O

OIF MLG or IEEE PMA w/ Virtual Lanes

Multi-channel pluggable modules OIF MLG MPO connector

11© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

I/O Lanes Extended

I/O Lane Rate 0.625G 2.5G 10G 25G 50G

Year 1997 - 2000

2001 - 2004

2005 - 2008

2009 - 2012

2013 - 2016

2017 - 2020

10GbE 16x 4x (3G) 1x 0.4x (MLG)

0.2x (MLG)

40GbE 16x 4x 1.6x (MLG) 1x (40G)

100GbE 10x 4x 2x

400GbE 16x 8x

12© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Port Densities ExtendedFormFactor

Electrical I/O Rows 10GE

Ports40GEPorts

100GEPorts

SFP+ 1x10G Double 48 N.A. N.A.

QSFP+ 4x10G Double 176 44 N.A.

QSFP28 4x10G 4x25G Single 88 22 22

(MMF only)

CFP2 10x10G 4x25G Single 100 20 10

CFP4 MLG 4x25G Single 180 36 18

CFP4 MLG 4x25G Double 360 72 36

CFP2 MLG 8x50G Single 320 10040

(10x 400GE)

CFP4 MLG 4x50G Double 576 144 72

13© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

CFP2 Port Density Example

Ex. 400GbE-LR4 CFP2 8x50G I/O duplex LC WDM HOM 10 ports 4Tb/s line cardMulti-channel MLG CFP2s 8x50G I/O (same slot) MPO 4x 100GbE (40 ports) 10x 40GbE (100 ports) 32x 10GbE (320 ports)

14© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Pluggables vs. SocketMatt TraversoEngineering ManagerTransceiver Module Group, CiscoMember Ethernet Alliance Board of Directors

15© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Pluggable Universe

Optics designed Different optics/port types (reaches)

Point APoint B

16© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Point APoint B

Opt.Conn

.

OpticalEngine

Opt.Conn

.

Socket

Socket

OpticalEngine

Socketed Universe Optics/port built onto card Fixed optics/port types (reaches)

Example:Avago Minipod

17© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Generic Picture Trading off the costs for

Cable vs. PMD Trading off the costs for

Reach Flexibility vs. Optimized Reach Trading off Handling

Cables w/ “dongles” vs. connectorized cables

PMD Cable PMDMAC MAC

Logical / Protocol Interfaces

Physical Interfaces

18© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Socket vs. Pluggable

Why Socket

Socketed design optimized for single reach & media

Fixed Port type

Why Pluggable

1)Pluggable design supports variety of reaches & media

2)Pluggable design enables field serviceability

3)Enables a pay as you grow model

19© 2013 Ethernet Alliance

Disclaimer

The views we are expressing in this

presentation are our own personal views and should

not be considered the views or positions of the

Ethernet Alliance.