Trends in Interconnects &
Integration
Moderator Greg McSorley, Amphenol
Panelists
Brad Booth, Dell
Chris Cole, Finisar
Matt Traverso, Cisco
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
1
Gb Ethernet interconnects today
Passive Copper Cable
10/100/1000M
10Gb
Optical
Category 5/6
SC/LC MM
Coax
SC/LC SM
Category 6/7
SFP+
40Gb
Active Copper Cables
SFP+
DAC
DAC
QSFP+
40GBASE-CR4
DAC
QSFP+
DAC
LC
MM OM1/2/3/4
LC SM
LC
MM OM3/4
LC SM
100Gb 10 x 10
CXP
Direct Attach Twin Ax
CFP2 Direct Attach Twin Ax
•CFP2
LC
100Gb 4 x 25
QSFP+
•QSFP+
LC
Direct
DAC
•CFP4 DAC
OM1/2
MM OM3/4
LC SM
MM OM3/4
LC SM
DAC = Direct Attach Twin Ax Cable
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
© 2012 Ethernet Alliance
2
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
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
3
Optical vs. Copper Cost
Comparison at 100G
Brad Booth
Director, Network Architecture
Office of the CTO | Enterprise Solutions Group
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
4
Focus of Cost
Comparison
Leaf or Spine
Switch
Top of
Rack
Switch
Area of
Focus
(Intrarack)
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
5
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
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
6
Relative Cost Graph
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
7
Multi-Link Modules
Extending Density
Chris Cole
Director, Transceiver Engineering
Finisar Corporation
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
8
I/O Lane Densities
I/O Lane
Rate
0.625G
2.5G
Year
1997 2000
2001 2004
2005 2008
10GbE
16x
4x (3G)
1x
40GbE
10G
16x
10x
400GbE

50G
2013 2016
2017 2020
4x
100GbE

2009 2012
25G
1x (40G)
4x
2x
16x
8x
Does 10G Lane density stops at 10G?
Does 40G Lane density stop at 40G?
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
9
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
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
10
I/O Lanes Extended
I/O Lane
Rate
0.625G
2.5G
Year
1997 2000
2001 2004
2005 2008
10GbE
16x
4x (3G)
1x
40GbE
10G
16x
2009 2012
4x
100GbE
10x
400GbE
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
25G
50G
2013 2016
2017 2020
0.4x
(MLG)
1.6x
(MLG)
0.2x
(MLG)
1x (40G)
4x
2x
16x
8x
11
Port Densities Extended
Form
Factor
Electrical
I/O
Rows
10GE
Ports
40GE
Ports
100GE
Ports
SFP+
1x10G
Double
48
N.A.
N.A.
QSFP+
4x10G
Double
176
44
N.A.
Single
88
22
22
(MMF only)
Single
100
20
10
QSFP28
CFP2
4x10G
4x25G
10x10G
4x25G
CFP4 MLG
4x25G
Single
180
36
18
CFP4 MLG
4x25G
Double
360
72
36
CFP2 MLG
8x50G
Single
320
100
40
(10x 400GE)
CFP4 MLG
4x50G
Double
576
144
72
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
12
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)
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
13
Pluggables vs. Socket
Matt Traverso
Engineering Manager
Transceiver Module Group, Cisco
Member Ethernet Alliance Board of Directors
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
14
Pluggable Universe


Optics designed
Different optics/port types (reaches)
Point B
Point A
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
15
Socketed Universe


Optics/port built onto card
Fixed optics/port types (reaches)
Point B
Point A
Opt.
Conn.
Optical
Engine
Socket
Optical
Engine
Socket
Opt.
Conn.
Example:
Avago Minipod
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
16
Generic Picture

Trading off the costs for


Trading off the costs for


Cable vs. PMD
Reach Flexibility vs. Optimized Reach
Trading off Handling

Cables w/ “dongles” vs. connectorized cables
Logical / Protocol Interfaces
MAC
PMD
Cable
PMD
MAC
Physical
Interfaces
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
17
Socket vs. Pluggable
Why Socket


Why Pluggable
Socketed design
optimized for single
reach & media
Fixed Port type
1) Pluggable
design
supports variety of
reaches & media
2) Pluggable
design
enables field
serviceability
3) Enables
a pay as you
grow model
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
18
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.
© 2013 Ethernet Alliance
19