North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE

  • From: Brandon Butterworth
  • Date: Thu Dec 13 04:17:47 2007

> (totally disregarding the HSSG policy of talking cost and not price here)

All we see is price, don't forget step 3. Profit

> 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.

Consider C prices. If there are two parts there is scope to charge
a lot more for 10km than if it was the only option

10km is a convenient distance for inter pop use around London
Docklands, similarly around other IX. I guess over half our
10G fails the 4km spec

> Having a 10km reach alternative costing 60% of 40km reach optics
> just doesn't make sense.

I'm in favour of less permutations of reach and package, a higher
volume of fewer variants would reduce the cost of stocking spares
which could be cheaper due to volume manufacture

> 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.

Engineering links increases cost. We can do 100G optics but it's
still too hard to do auto link power adjustment?