Based on "100GBASE-KR1/CR1", 8 lanes of 800G standardized with copper wiring

Although not directly related to optical Ethernet, copper wiring was discussed at the August meeting. There were also two presentations about this, so I would like to explain them together.

The first is "Consensus Support for 800GbE over 8-Lanes based on 100GEL" by Sam Kocsis of Amphenol. As you can see, it is an 800G standard with 8 lanes using copper wiring.

First of all, for the 100G per lane copper wiring standard, the "IEEE P802.3ck Task Force" is currently working on it (currently at the Draft 2.2 stage. Standardization is scheduled to be completed in July 2022), "100GBASE-KR1 /CR1" and bundled "200GBASE-KR2/CR2" and "400GBASE-KR4/CR4" are proceeding toward standardization.

KR1/2/4 uses copper wiring on the PCB for the backplane, and CR1/2/4 uses a pair of coaxial cables for Direct Attach as one lane.

　100GBASE-KR1/CR1 of 100G is the technical base, 200G is 2 pairs, and 400G is 4 pairs. P802.3ck” is only 400G, and no further deliberations have been made.

Aside from OSFP, QSFP-DD800 has MSA launched in September 2019, so I think it was just in time for deliberation by IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, but the 8-lane configuration is not subject to deliberation

However, in reality, it is possible to handle 8-lane signals by using OSFP or QSFP-DD800, and considering that "400GBASE-CR8/KR8" is widely used in the industry, 8-lane standard has meaning.

The assumption is that 1.6Tb/s can be increased to 200G per lane, but is this possible? I feel like the discussion is first.

　Actually, if you look at Arista Network's "Transceivers & Cables" for example, you'll find a product called "400G Copper OSFP" at the bottom.

In addition to 400G to 400G, 400G to 2 x 200G/4 x 100G/8 x 50G are lined up, and the maximum length is 3m, so it should be said that it covers the needs properly, although it is for connection within the rack. Is it okay to call it "400GBASE-CR8" as it is? Source: Arista Networks product page

Based on these trends, it is likely that the 8-lane module is already acceptable in the market.

Moreover, regarding compatibility, up to 400G is already scheduled to be standardized by IEEE P802.3ck. If you bundle two of these, you can use it as 800G or 2 x 400G.

Conversely, it seems that it is not difficult to configure 800G to maintain compatibility with 400G

Based on the above, the Study Group objectively defines 800G CR/KR The proposal in this presentation is that you should.

The minimum reach of 2m is the requirement of "400GBASE-CR4", and the insertion loss of 28dB or less at 26.56GHz is the requirement of "400GBASE-KR4", and it is a look that brought this as it is

[Straw Poll #1] 800Gb Should /s define a physical layer with 8 lanes of coaxial cable (2 each) with a reach of at least 2m?

[Straw Poll #2] Should we define a physical layer for a backplane with 8 lanes at 800Gb/s and insertion loss of 28dB or less at 26.56GHz?

[Motion #1] Define physical layer for 800Gb/s CR (75%)

[Motion #2] Define physical layer for 800Gb/s KR (75%) %)

So, it was decided that this proposal would be included in the Study Group's Objective.