Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© 2013 Ethernet Alliance1 Moderator Greg McSorley, Amphenol Panelists Brad Booth, Dell Chris Cole, Finisar Matt Traverso, Cisco Trends in Interconnects.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "© 2013 Ethernet Alliance1 Moderator Greg McSorley, Amphenol Panelists Brad Booth, Dell Chris Cole, Finisar Matt Traverso, Cisco Trends in Interconnects."— Presentation transcript:

1 © 2013 Ethernet Alliance1 Moderator Greg McSorley, Amphenol Panelists Brad Booth, Dell Chris Cole, Finisar Matt Traverso, Cisco Trends in Interconnects & Integration

2 2© 2013 Ethernet Alliance © 2012 Ethernet Alliance Gb Ethernet interconnects today Passive Copper CableActive Copper CablesOptical 10/100/1000M Category 5/6 Coax SC/LC MM OM1/2 SC/LC SM 10Gb Category 6/7 SFP+ DAC LC MM OM1/2/3/4 LC SM 40Gb QSFP+ DAC 40GBASE-CR4 QSFP+ DAC LC MM OM3/4 LC SM 100Gb 10 x 10 CXP Direct Attach Twin Ax CFP2 Direct Attach Twin Ax CFP2 LC MM OM3/4 LC SM 100Gb 4 x 25 QSFP+ Direct QSFP+ DAC CFP4 DAC LC MM OM3/4 LC SM DAC = Direct Attach Twin Ax Cable

3 3© 2013 Ethernet Alliance Panelists Brad Booth Director, Network Architecture Office of the CTO | Enterprise Solutions Group Chris Cole Director, Transceiver Engineering Finisar Corporation Matt Traverso Engineering Manager Transceiver Module Group, Cisco Member Ethernet Alliance Board of Directors

4 4© 2013 Ethernet Alliance Optical vs. Copper Cost Comparison at 100G Brad Booth Director, Network Architecture Office of the CTO | Enterprise Solutions Group

5 5© 2013 Ethernet Alliance Focus of Cost Comparison Area of Focus (Intra- rack) Leaf or Spine Switch Top of Rack Switch

6 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 7© 2013 Ethernet Alliance Relative Cost Graph

8 8© 2013 Ethernet Alliance Multi-Link Modules Extending Density Chris Cole Director, Transceiver Engineering Finisar Corporation

9 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 0.625G2.5G10G25G50G Year GbE16x4x (3G)1x 40GbE 16x 4x1x (40G) 100GbE 10x4x2x 400GbE 16x8x

10 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 11© 2013 Ethernet Alliance I/O Lanes Extended I/O Lane Rate 0.625G2.5G10G25G50G Year GbE16x4x (3G)1x 0.4x (MLG) 0.2x (MLG) 40GbE 16x 4x 1.6x (MLG) 1x (40G) 100GbE 10x4x2x 400GbE 16x8x

12 12© 2013 Ethernet Alliance Port Densities Extended Form Factor Electrical I/O Rows 10GE Ports 40GE Ports 100GE Ports SFP+1x10GDouble48N.A. QSFP+4x10GDouble17644N.A. QSFP28 4x10G 4x25G Single8822 (MMF only) CFP2 10x10G 4x25G Single CFP4 MLG4x25GSingle CFP4 MLG4x25GDouble CFP2 MLG8x50GSingle (10x 400GE) CFP4 MLG4x50GDouble

13 13© 2013 Ethernet Alliance CFP2 Port Density Example Ex. 400GbE-LR4 CFP2 8x50G I/O duplex LC WDM HOM 10 ports 4Tb/s line card Multi-channel MLG CFP2s 8x50G I/O (same slot) MPO 4x 100GbE (40 ports) 10x 40GbE (100 ports) 32x 10GbE (320 ports)

14 14© 2013 Ethernet Alliance Pluggables vs. Socket Matt Traverso Engineering Manager Transceiver Module Group, Cisco Member Ethernet Alliance Board of Directors

15 15© 2013 Ethernet Alliance Pluggable Universe Optics designed Different optics/port types (reaches) Point A Point B

16 16© 2013 Ethernet Alliance Point A Point B Opt. Conn. Optical Engine Opt. Conn. Socket Optical Engine Socketed Universe Optics/port built onto card Fixed optics/port types (reaches) Example: Avago Minipod

17 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 PMD MAC Logical / Protocol Interfaces Physical Interfaces

18 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 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.


Download ppt "© 2013 Ethernet Alliance1 Moderator Greg McSorley, Amphenol Panelists Brad Booth, Dell Chris Cole, Finisar Matt Traverso, Cisco Trends in Interconnects."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google