400 gigabit ethernet call-for-interest consensus … · 2013-03-21 · 400 gigabit ethernet...

400 Gigabit Ethernet Call-For-Interest Consensus IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group IEEE 802 March 2013 Plenary, Orlando, FL

1

400 Gigabit Ethernet Call-For-Interest Consensus, V1.0 Orlando, FL, USA

Objective for this Meeting

• To measure the interest in starting a study group to address 400 Gb/s Ethernet interconnect – Defining “Core OTN Transport” beyond the scope of this

effort

• We don’t need to – Fully explore the problem – Debate strengths and weaknesses of solutions – Choose any one solution – Create PAR or five criteria – Create a standard or specification

• Anyone in the room may speak / vote • RESPECT… give it, get it

2 March 19, 2013


What Are We Talking About?

3 March 19, 2013

IEEE defined Ethernet ITU-T defined

“Core OTN Transport” carrying Ethernet traffic

X,000 km

• At highest rates Ethernet is becoming dominant traffic for client- and line-side – “Core OTN Transport” is defined by the ITU-T

• Interdependent problems, but not interchangeable solutions

IEEE defined Ethernet

OUR SCOPE OUR SCOPE


4

• Presentations – “The Bandwidth Explosion,” David Ofelt, Juniper – “Beyond 100 Gigabit Ethernet, Technical

Challenges,” Mark Nowell, Cisco. – “400 Gigabit Ethernet- Why Now,” John

D’Ambrosia, Dell.

• Straw Polls

Agenda

March 19, 2013

THE BANDWIDTH EXPLOSION

Presented by David Ofelt, Juniper IEEE 802.3 Working Group Orlando, FL, USA March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013 5


The Ethernet Eco-System Today

6 March 19, 2013

Consumer

Mobile

Enterprises

Data Centers

Backbone Networks

Internet eXchange and Interconnection Points


Changes since 2007 HSSG • Infrastructure / Devices

– Smart Phones – Tablets – Wi-Fi Deployments – 3G / 4G / LTE – 10G Server Deployment – Internet Enabled TV – The “Cloud”

7 March 19, 2013

• Applications – Cloud-based Businesses – Practical Cloud Storage – Ubiquitous Video Streaming – Social Media Explosion – Video Calling Commonplace – New Database Technology – Online Gaming

Compared against a 32 bit laptop*

Device Traffic Multiplier Tablet 1.1

64-bit laptop 1.9

Internet Enabled TV 2.9

Gaming Console 3.0

Internet 3D TV 3.2 *Source: http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/BWA_Report.pdf

http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/BWA_Report.pdf


Highlights since IEEE P802.3ba

8 March 19, 2013

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

40/100 CFI 802.3ba end 802.3ba start

100GE Shipped LTE

Smart Phones Tablets

Streaming Video

Cloud Services

Streaming Games

Stan

dard

s

infra

stru

ctur

e

Dev

ices

Soci

al

netw

orki

ng

Appl

icat

ions

Plat

form

s&

Scie

nce

Internet TV Devices

MMOG

LHC

40G servers

Cloud Storage

10G BASE-T

You Are Here

Year

Social Media… Social Media …Social Media… Social Media …Social Media


9 March 19, 2013

2015 Global Users and Network Connections

North America

288 Million Users 2.2 Billion Devices

Western Europe


Central/Eastern Europe

201 Million Users 902 Million Devices

Latin America


Middle East & Africa


Asia Pacific


Japan 116 Million Users

727 Million Devices

Source: nowell_01_0911.pdf citing Cisco Visual Networking Index (VNI) Global IP Traffic Forecast, 2010–2015, http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/public/sep11/nowell_01_0911.pdf

http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/public/sep11/nowell_01_0911.pdf


Global Broadband Speed 2010-2015 Average broadband speed will grow 4X; from 7 to 28 Mbps

10 March 19, 2013

North America

3.7-Fold growth 7.5 to 27 Mbps

Western Europe




Latin America




Asia Pacific


Japan 4.1-Fold growth

15.5 to 64 Mbps




Global IP Traffic Growth, 2010–2015 Regional contributions to the Zettabyte journey

11 March 19, 2013

North America

22.3 EB/Month by 2015 26% CAGR, 3X Growth

Western Europe




Latin America




Asia Pacific


Japan 4.8 EB/Month by 2015 27% CAGR, 3X Growth




Some Interesting Facts & Forecasts • Facebook Facts:*

– Dec 2006 – 12 Million Users – Dec 2010 – 608 Million Users – Oct 2012 – Over 1 Billion Users

• Forecast May 30, 2012** – By 2016 – 1.2 million video minutes traveling Internet every second – “Fixed” video users: 0.792B (2011) to 1.5B (2016) – “Mobile” video users – fastest growing mobile service, 0.271B (2011) to 1.6B (2016) – Desktop videoconferencing users – 26.4M (2011) to 218.9M (2016)

• Forecast Feb 2013 *** – Mobile video to represent 66% of all mobile data traffic by 2017

• YouTube Statistics **** – Every minute - 72 hours of video are uploaded – Each month 4 billion hours of video are watched – 25% of global views come from mobile devices – Traffic from mobile devices tripled in 2011

• Netflix – Oct 28, 2011 – “Netflix represents 32.7% of North America’s peak web traffic”

12 March 19, 2013

• * Facebook Newsroom, Timeline, http://newsroom.fb.com/Timeline. • ** May 30, Press Release, “2012, Cisco VNI Forecast,” http://newsroom.cisco.com/press-release-content?articleId=888280. • *** Visual Networking Index , Cisco, http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns827/networking_solutions_sub_solution.html#~forecast, Feb, 2013. • ****Youtube Statistics, http://www.youtube.com/t/press_statistics, data obtained Feb 15, 2013. • ***** Techspot – “Netflix represents 32.7% of North America’s peak Web traffic, Oct 28, 2011, http://www.techspot.com/news/46048-netflix-

represents-327-of-north-americas-peak-web-traffic.html.

http://newsroom.fb.com/Timeline

http://newsroom.cisco.com/press-release-content?articleId=888280

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns827/networking_solutions_sub_solution.html

http://www.youtube.com/t/press_statistics

http://www.techspot.com/news/46048-netflix-represents-327-of-north-americas-peak-web-traffic.html

http://www.techspot.com/news/46048-netflix-represents-327-of-north-americas-peak-web-traffic.html


Today • CERN

– Atlas detector in LHC (Large Hadron Collider) generates ~1 petabyte/sec

– Trigger farm reduces to 450MB/sec • Tens of Gb/s of outbound traffic

to analysis centers

• Genome sequencing – Per-instrument data rate strongly ↗

(~10x over 5 years) – Data costs plummeting vastly

increased data volume – http://www.genome.gov/sequencingc

osts/

• Belle-II – 250PB of experimental data in first 5

years of operation

• Square Kilometer Array (SKA) – ~2800 receivers in telescope array – 2 petabytes/sec to central correlator

• sending @ ~100 Gb/s to analysis centers

Science: Big Data Sources

Source: http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/public/dec11/dart_01_1211.pdf (updated: interview Eli Dart, August 29, 2012)

CERN is “the tip of the iceberg”

Future

March 19, 2013 13

http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/

http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/

http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/public/dec11/dart_01_1211.pdf


Findings of IEEE 802.3 BWA Ad Hoc

14 March 19, 2013

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Traf

fic re

lativ

e to

201

0 va

lue

Financial sector fit to Figure 15

CAGR = 95%

Peering fit to Figure 39

CAGR = 64%

IP traffic Figure 2

CAGR = 32%

Science fit to Figure 13

ESnet 2004 to 2011 CAGR = 70%

Cable Figure 20

CAGR = 50%

Figure 15 NYSE historical data

Figure 39 Euro-IX historical data

HSSG tutorial Slide 22 core CAGR = 58%

HSSG tutorial Slide 22 server I/O

CAGR = 36%

Source: http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/BWA_Report.pdf



The Server Roadmap

15 March 19, 2013

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

Rat

e M

b/s

Core Networking Doubling ≈18

mos

Gigabit Ethernet

10 Gigabit Ethernet

40 Gigabit Ethernet

Server I/O Doubling ≈24

mos

100 Gigabit Ethernet

Server Upgrade Path 2014: 40 GbE 2017: 100 GbE

Blade Servers 802.3ba: 10 GbE to 40 GbE 802.3bj: 40 GbE to 100 GbE

Other Future Server I/Os 40GBASE-T 100GbE over MMF

400 Gigabit Ethernet Call-For-Interest Consensus, V1.0 Orlando, FL, USA 16 March 19, 2013

10GbE Server Deployments

0

2

4

6

8

Port

s in

Mill

ions

10GbE Server-class Adapter & LOM Shipments

CREHAN RESEARCH Inc.

2012 Results: +50% Y/Y growth

0

260

520

Server-class Adapter & LOM 10GBASE-T Shipments

Port

s in

Tho

usan

ds



17 March 19, 2013

40GbE Server Deployment Forecast Server-class Adapter & LOM

40GbE Shipments

Port

s in

Mill

ions

0

2

4

6


Example: Dual port 40GbE server

40 GbE QSFP Ports

Source – Shane Kavanagh, Dell DCS


18 March 19, 2013

Center of the Storm – Data Centers

Demand From the North: More Users More Devices

More Bandwidth More applications!

Demand From the South: More Storage More Servers

Faster Storage Faster Servers

East / West Traffic New Applications New Databases New Architectures

East / West Traffic from Next Door!


1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

1.E+09

1.E+10

1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020

Rm

ax (G

flops

/s)

#1 SuperComputer: Performance Trend

Rmax Expon. (Rmax)

19 March 19, 2013

High Performance Computing

• Increased processing capability will require bigger pipes!

Source: Top500. ORG - http://www.top500.org/statistics/sublist/.

http://www.top500.org/statistics/sublist/


Highlights since IEEE P802.3ba

20 March 19, 2013

2012 2013 2014

stan

dard

s

infra

stru

ctur

e

devi

ces

Soci

al

netw

orki

ng

Appl

icat

ions

Plat

form

s&

Scie

nce!

You Are Here

2015 2016 2018 2019 2020 Year

2017

Beyond 100 GbE

■ More users ■ More mobile ■ More video ■ More devices ■ More data ■ More applications ■ More networked science ■ Larger flows ■ 40G & 100G servers


Link Aggregation

21

■ Problem: Need to scale the Network (density & cost)

■ Temporary Solution: Link Aggregation

■ Pros: Addresses bandwidth requirements between releases of faster links

■ Cons: ● Non-deterministic performance ● Fastest flow limited to individual link speed ● Exponential bandwidth growth implies:

○ Exponential growth in number of links ○ Growth in operational & management issues

● Doesn’t scale forever.

■ Faster links address these issues and they will be LAGGed!

March 19, 2013

Courtesy, David Ofelt, Juniper.

Physical Mockup: “80xN” LAG using 80 links

• Used 25% of all front panel ports for single “LAG”

• OpEx Challenges BW 100GbE 400GbE

2015 Terabit 10 x 100 3 x 400 2020 10 Terabit 100 x100 25 x 400


Unrelenting bandwidth growth everywhere End users / devices! Applications! Video!

Core OTN Transport Beyond scope of this effort

Ethernet Interconnect Must scale to support bandwidth growth Example – Data centers pressured from all directions

E Enabling bandwidth Enables applications Drives bandwidth

Section Summary

22 March 19, 2013

BEYOND 100 GIGABIT ETHERNET TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

Presented by Mark Nowell, Cisco IEEE 802.3 Working Group Orlando, FL, USA March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013 23


What Are We Talking About?

24 March 19, 2013

IEEE defined Ethernet ITU-T defined

“Core OTN Transport” carrying Ethernet traffic

X,000 km

IEEE defined Ethernet

OUR SCOPE OUR SCOPE

• At highest rates Ethernet is becoming dominant traffic for client- and line-side – “Core OTN Transport” is defined by the ITU-T

• Interdependent problems, but not interchangeable solutions

Economics & Optimal Solutions are Different


CMOS Roadmap

25

■ CMOS IC features have shrunk by ~2x since 100Gb/s MAC/PCS was defined in 802.3ba

■ CMOS International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, 2011 Revision Overview:

■ ITRS Sponsoring Industry Associations (IAs): European

Semiconductor IA, Japan Electronics and Information Technology Association, Korea Semiconductor IA, Taiwan Semiconductor IA, (US) Semiconductor IA

March 19, 2013


Electrical Signaling Development • 25 Gb/s

– IEEE P802.3bj (NRZ / PAM-4)

– IEEE P802.3bm – OIF CEI-28G – 32G Fibre Channel

• OIF CEI-56G

26 March 19, 2013

Technology Building Blocks (1 of 2)

Courtesy, Ali Ghiasi, Broadcom

Modulation

Courtesy, Mark Bugg, Molex

x16 Connector


27 March 19, 2013

Technology Building Blocks (2 of 2)

Courtesy, US Conec

x16 Optical Connector & Cable

Courtesy, Atsushi Takai, Oclaro

300 Pin MSA (x16 interface)

InP Photonics

Courtesy, CyOptics Inc.

Courtesy, Finisar Corp.

Silicon Photonics

GaAs Photonics

Courtesy, Tom Palkert, Luxtera


Ethernet Module Electrical Interfaces Industry Development Efforts Past & Possible Future

28 March 19, 2013

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

10G

40G (4 X10)

100G (10X10) Gen 1

10G

XFI SFI

XLAUI

CAUI

100G (4x25G) Gen 2

400G (16x25G) Gen1

25G

CEI-28G-VSR* 802.3bm

CAUI-4

400GbE?

Modulation TBD 50

G

CEI-56G-VSR*

TbE (10x100G) Gen 1

100G

?

???

ELEC

TRIC

AL

SIG

NA

LIN

G R

ATE

PER

LA

NE

???

CEI-28G-SR*

* - OIF specification or work under way

802.3ba

Modulation TBD

400G (8X50G) Gen 2


RECONCILIATION

An Ethernet Overview of the Problem

29

CGMII

MAC

100GBASE-R PCS

FEC

PMA

PMD

MDI

MEDIUM

Electrical Functions • Increase interface channel count • Increase interface rate • Increase interface modulation order

Media • Increase fiber count • Increase lambda count

Optical Functions • Increase interface channel count • Increase interface rate • Increase interface modulation order

March 19, 2013

PHY


MAC Technical Feasibility

30

400 Gb/s and 1 Tb/s first generation implementation, with a separate MAC/PCS device (1 Tb/s interface widths are very challenging)

March 19, 2013

MAC/PCS OPTICS NP 16x25G 40x12.5G

Packet I/F

100x12.5G 40x25G?

Module I/F

400 Gb/s and 1 Tb/s MAC options MAC Rate Node Technology Bus Width Clock Rate Notes 100 Gb/s 45, 40nm ASIC 160 bits 644 MHz

100 Gb/s 45, 40nm FPGA 512 195 MHz

400 Gb/s 28, 20nm ASIC 400 1 GHz

400 Gb/s 28, 20nm FPGA 1024 400 MHz

1 Tb/s 28, 20nm ASIC 1024 1 GHz

1 Tb/s 28, 20nm FPGA 2560 400 MHz Challenging


A System Perspective

31 March 19, 2013

MAC

Module

Switch

Backplane

Network Processor

PHY Sample architecture highlights all places that might be needed to support interfaces in a system Next slide shows the impact!

• Interface width is not just a module consideration, but an overall system issue

• Wider interfaces > more pins • More pins > More traces to route

• More power • More cost • More complexity


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Num

ber o

f Con

nect

ions

(k)

Instances of Interfaces in a System 40 Lane 20 Lane 16 lane 8 Lane

The Impact of the Electrical Interface Width

32 March 19, 2013

Power →

Low

er C

ost → L

ower

Com

plexity → L

ower

1 Port 32 Ports

X16 Width: Historical Maximum Module Interface


Optics Electronics

Opt

con

nect

or

Elec

con

nect

or

Definition of these interfaces…

… drives complexity of the module implementation

Example: Anatomy of an Optical Module Implementation

March 19, 2013 33


Cost, Power, & Density

BW Demand

Matching Needs with Capabilities Technology Options

“Mature” “Bleeding edge” “Development”.

March 19, 2013 34

The never ending balancing acts!

It’s all going to change with time

Cost, Power Density


Potential Technology Axes for increasing Gbit/s in the Optical and Electrical Domains

35 March 19, 2013

Modulation (i.e. Bits per Symbol)

1 (e.g. NRZ)

2 (e.g. PAM4)

4 (e.g. 16QAM)

4 8 16 Space Division Multiplexing (i.e. Multiple Electrical Channels)

12

Signaling Rate (i.e. Gb/s)

10 25 50 100 75

Wavelength Division Multiplexing (i.e. λs )

4 8 12 16

Space Division Multiplexing (i.e. Multiple Optical Fibers)

4 8 16 12

-LR4

XLAUI CEI-28G CEI-56G

P802.3bj

10 x 10

-SR4 -SR10

XLAUI CAUI XSBI


Example: Finding a Path to 400Gbit “Gen 1”

36 March 19, 2013


1 (e.g. NRZ)

2 (e.g. PAM4)

4 (e.g. 16QAM)


12

10 25 50 100 75


4 8 12 16


4 8 16 12

-LR4


P802.3bj

10 x 10

-SR4 -SR10

XLAUI CAUI XSBI

X

X

X

X

X



Example: Finding a Path to 400Gbit “Future”

37 March 19, 2013


1 (e.g. NRZ)

2 (e.g. PAM4)

4 (e.g. 16QAM)


12

10 25 50 100 75


4 8 12 16


4 8 16 12

-LR4


P802.3bj

10 x 10

-SR4 -SR10

XLAUI CAUI XSBI

X

X

X

X

X



• Time is not on our side: – 2015 Capacity Requirements: 10x 2010: 1 Terabit – 2020 Capacity Requirements: 100 x 2010: 10 Terabit

• Technology for 400 Gigabit Ethernet – Leverage 100GbE building blocks – Plausible implementations for today and next generation – Fits with dense 100GbE technology roadmap

• Not “can it be done” but “can it be done at right cost!” – Power, cost, density

• We believe there is a path forward to cost-effective 400 Gb/s Ethernet!

38 March 19, 2013

Summary

400 GIGABIT ETHERNET - WHY NOW?

Presented by John D’Ambrosia, Dell IEEE 802.3 Working Group Orlando, FL, USA March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013 39


Findings of IEEE 802.3 BWA Ad Hoc

40 March 19, 2013

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Traf

fic re

lativ

e to

201

0 va

lue

Financial sector fit to Figure 15

CAGR = 95%

Peering fit to Figure 39

CAGR = 64%

IP traffic Figure 2

CAGR = 32%

Science fit to Figure 13

ESnet 2004 to 2011 CAGR = 70%

Cable Figure 20

CAGR = 50%

Figure 15 NYSE historical data

Figure 39 Euro-IX historical data

HSSG tutorial Slide 22 core CAGR = 58%

HSSG tutorial Slide 22 server I/O

CAGR = 36%

Source: http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/BWA_Report.pdf



The Future is Here…

41 March 19, 2013

Source: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/fergalc/internet-traffic-during-olympics-2012

2012 Summer Olympics After First Round of Euro 2012 Matches

Source: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/fergalc/internet-traffic-after-first-round-of-euro-2012-matches/AMSIXNL.png

Thanks to Bijal Sanghani, Euro-IX.

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/fergalc/internet-traffic-during-olympics-2012









https://labs.ripe.net/Members/fergalc/internet-traffic-after-first-round-of-euro-2012-matches/AMSIXNL.png


















The Need for 400 Gb/s Ethernet

• Traffic is growing everywhere – More Internet users – More ways to access the internet faster – Higher bandwidth content – New applications enabled – And it goes on

• IEEE 802.3 BWA Forecast – 2015 Capacity, 10x requirements of 2010 - Terabit – 2020 Capacity 100x requirements of 2010 – 10 Terabit

• Time is not on our side…

42 March 19, 2013


Summary • Bandwidth – exponential growth continues! • New bandwidth generating applications constantly

being introduced • Higher Speed @ lower cost per bit needed by

Ethernet Interconnect • Past efforts took 3 to 4 years

– 10 Gigabit Ethernet – Ethernet First Mile – 40 Gigabit and 100 Gigabit Ethernet

• We need to begin the process to study the problem

• “The Next Speed is not the Last Speed”

43 March 19, 2013


Contributors • Pete Anslow, Ciena • Chris Cole, Finisar • Kai Cui, Huawei • John D’Ambrosia, Dell • Mark Gustlin, Xilinx • Mike Li, Altera • Jeff Maki, Juniper • Andy Moorwood, Infinera • Gary Nicholl, Cisco • Mark Nowell, Cisco • David Ofelt, Juniper • Brian Teipen, ADVA • Jim Theodoras, ADVA • Steve Trowbridge, Alcatel-Lucent • IEEE 802.3 Higher Speed Ethernet Consensus Ad Hoc

44 March 19, 2013


Supporters Across the Eco-System (1 of 3) • Ghani Abbas, Ericsson • John Abbott, Corning • Shamim Akhtar, Comcast • Arne Alping, Ericsson • Jon Anderson, Oclaro • Pete Anslow, Ciena • Liav Ben Artsi, Marvell • Andrew Bach, Juniper • Thananya Baldwin, Ixia • Shen Bailin, ZTE • Stephen Bates, PMC-Sierra • Mike Bennett, LBNL • Chris Bergey, Luxtera • Gary Bernstein, Leviton • Ralf-Peter Braun, Deutsche

Telecom • David Brown, Semtech • Matt Brown, Applied Micro • Steve Carlson, High Speed

Design • Martin Carroll, Verizon • Derek Cassidy, BT

45 March 19, 2013

• Dave Chalupsky, Intel • Frank Chang, Vitesse • Che-Hoo Cheng, CUHK/HKIX • Wheling Cheng, Juniper • Derek Cobb, LINX • Chris Cole, Finisar • Kai Cui, Huawei • John D’Ambrosia, Dell • Wael Diab, Broadcom • Chris DiMinico, MC

Communications • Dan Dove, Applied Micro • Mike Dudek, Qlogic • Hesham ElBakoury, Huawei • Arash Farhood, Cortina • Jan Filip, Maxim Integrated • Alan Flatman, LAN Technologies • Harry Forbes, Nexans • Howard Frazier, Broadcom • Galen Fromm, Cray • Ilango Ganga, Intel • Ali Ghiasi, Broadcom

• Mark Gustlin, Xilinx • Marek Hajduczenia, ZTE • Hiroshi Hamano, Fujitsu

Labs • Bernie Hammmond, TE

Connectivity • Adam Healey, LSI • Brian Holden, Kandou Bus,

S.A. • Lu Huang, China Mobile • Xi Huang, Huawei • Alexander Ilin, MSK-IX • Scott Irwin, MoSys • Hideki Isono, Fujitsu Optical

Components • Tom Issenhuth, Microsoft • Jack Jewell, Independent,

CommScope • Mark Jones, Xtera

Communications • Shinkyo Kaku, Allied Telesis • Jonathan King, Finisar • Scott Kipp, Brocade


46 March 19, 2013

• Paul Kolesar, CommScope • Masashi Kono, Hitachi • Ryan Latchman, Mindspeed • Greg Lecheminant, Agilent • David Lewis, JDSU • Junjie Li, China Telecom • Mike Li, Altera • Sharon Lutz, US Conec • Valerie Maguire, Siemon • Jeff Maki, Juniper • Edwin Mallette, Bright House

Networks • Roger Marks, Consensii LLC • Arthur Marris, Cadence • Tomizawa Masahito, NTT • Tom McDermott, Fujitsu Network

Communications • John McDonough, NEC • Greg McSorley, Amphenol • Mounir Meghelli, IBM • Rich Mellitz, Intel • Inder Monga, ESnet

• Andy Moorwood, Infinera • Shimon Muller, Oracle • Karl Muth, Texas Instruments • Ed Nakamoto, Spirent • Gary Nicholl, Cisco • Arnold Nipper, DE-CIX • Susumu Nishihara, NTT • Takeshi Nishimura, Yamaichi

Electronics • Mark Nowell, Cisco • David Ofelt, Juniper • Hirotaka Oomori, Sumitomo

Electric • Tom Palkert, Xilinx, Luxtera,

Molex • Pravin Patel, IBM • Martin Pels – AMS-IX • Petar Pepeljugoski, IBM • Jerry Pepper, Ixia • Randy Perrie, OneChip

Photonics • John Petrilla, Avago • Rick Pimpinella, Panduit

• Scott Powell, Clariphy • Rick Rabinovich, Alcatel-

Lucent • Michael Ressl, Hitachi • Jorge Salinger, Comcast • Sam Sambasivan, AT&T • Martin Saner, SNT • Shawn Searles, Independent • Ted Seely, Sprint • Oren Sela, Mellanox • K. Seto, Hitachi Cable • Megha Shanbhag, TE

Connectivity • Song Shang, Semtech • Steve Shellhammer,

Qualcomm • Kapil Shrikhande, Dell • Scott Sommers, Molex • Xiaolu Song, Huawei • Ted Sprague, Infinera • Peter Stassar, Huawei • Henk Steenman, AMS-IX • Andre Szczepanek, Inphi

Supporters Across the Eco-System (2 of 3)


47 March 19, 2013

• Daniel Stevens, Fujitsu Semiconductor Europe

• Steve Swanson, Corning • Norm Swenson, Clariphy • William Szeto, Xtera

Communications • Akio Tajima, NEC • Takejiro Takabayashi, JPIX • Tomoo Takahara, Fujitsu Labs • Toshiki Tanaka, Fujitsu Labs • Katsuhisa, Tawa, Sumitomo

Electric • Brian Teipen, ADVA • Jim Theodoras, ADVA • Masahito Tomizawa, NTT • Hidehiro Toyoda, Hitachi • Nathan Tracy, TE Connectivity • Matt Traverso, Cisco • Francois Tremblay, Semtech • Steve Trowbridge, Alcatel-

Lucent • Eddie Tsumura, Sumitomo

Electric

Supporters Across the Eco-System (3 of 3) • Sterling Vaden, OCC • Paul Vanderlaan, Nexan • Arien Vijn, AMS-IX • Xiaofeng Wang, Qualcomm • David Warren, HP • Winston Way, Neophotonics • Cheng Weiqiang, China Mobile • Glenn Wellbrock, Verizon • CK Wong, FCI USA LLC • Chengbin Wu, ZTE • Helen Xuyu, Huawei • Andy Zambell, FCI • Wenyu Zhao, CATR • Pavel Zivny, Tektronix

STRAW POLLS March 19, 2013 48


Call-For-Interest

• Should a Study Group be formed for “ 400 Gb/s Ethernet”?

Y: N: A:

49 March 19, 2013


Participation

• I would participate in the “400 Gb/s Ethernet” Study Group in IEEE 802.3.

Tally: xx • My company would support participation in the

“400 Gb/s Ethernet” Study Group in IEEE 802.3

Tally: xx

50 March 19, 2013


Future Work

• Ask 802.3 on Thursday – Form 400 Gb/s Ethernet SG

• If approved, on Friday – Request 802 EC informed of 400 Gb/s Ethernet SG – First 400 Gb/s Ethernet SG meeting, week of May 2013

IEEE 802.3 Interim.

51 March 19, 2013

THANK YOU!

March 19, 2013 52

400 gigabit ethernet call-for-interest consensus … · 2013-03-21 · 400 gigabit ethernet...

Documents