OFC 2018 - ON2020: future trends in optical networking: a cloud service provider's perspective
•
2 gostaram•606 visualizações
This document discusses future trends in optical networking from Microsoft's perspective. It summarizes Microsoft's global datacenter network footprint and describes the evolution of optical networking technologies used within datacenters and between datacenters and regions. Current technologies include 100G PAM4 superchannels for inter-datacenter links and flexible modulation formats up to 200G for inter-region links. The document also discusses challenges around scaling bandwidth beyond 1.6T, further optical integration, interoperability between vendors, and the potential roles of techniques like flexible-QAM, open line systems, and space division multiplexing going forward.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a OFC 2018 - ON2020: future trends in optical networking: a cloud service provider's perspective
Semelhante a OFC 2018 - ON2020: future trends in optical networking: a cloud service provider's perspective (20)
Último
Último (20)
OFC 2018 - ON2020: future trends in optical networking: a cloud service provider's perspective
- 1. ON2020: future trends in optical networking A cloud service provider’s perspective Mark Filer Optical Network Architecture, Azure Networking
- 2. Microsoft’s global datacenter network United States United States Canada Mexico Venezuela Colombia Peru Bolivia Brazil Argentina Atlanta Ocean Algeria Mali Niger Nigeria Chad Libya Egypt Sudan Ethiopia Dr Congo Angola Zambia Nambia South Africa Greenland Svalbard Sweden Norway United Kingdom France Poland Ukraine Turkey Saudi Arabia Iran Kazakistan India Russia Russia China Myanmar (Burma) Indian Ocean Indonesia Australia Pacific Ocean Pacific Ocean Data centerOwned capacity Future capacity Leased capacity Edge site DCs and network sites not exhaustive
- 3. Azure WAN Backbone Region Regional architecture long haul DCI ≤100 km
- 4. RNGRNG DC DWDM PAM4 <100km PSM4 or CWDM4 <600m AOC <20m DC ecosystem mQAM >100km mQAM >100km
- 5. DC ecosystem intra-DC inter-DC inter-region #ofports(logscale)
- 6. Inside DC: technology barriers Lane speed stalls
- 7. Inside DC: integration and controlling cost Cost effective scaling beyond 1.6T generation not solved. All optical packet switches to the rescue? Lane speed stalls Optics in Package Optics on Die PCB ASIC Optics Fiber Switch PCB ASIC Optics Fiber ?
- 8. • sources: dedicated coherent transponders • line system: • proprietary closed system compatible with sources • proprietary NMS for control/monitoring • expensive and power-hungry! Yesterday Inter-DC to/from far-end RNG
- 9. • sources: 2-carrier 100G PAM4 (i.e. super- channel) • line system • auto gain config • auto chromatic dispersion comp • fixed channel grid in C-band - maximally lighting multiple fiber pairs day 1 Today Inter-DC (2) to/from far-end RNG
- 10. • sources: single-carrier 400G 16QAM (OIF 400ZR) • line system • Same but simplified specifications due to coherent sources • Re-use of PAM4 line systems possible Tomorrow (2020+) Inter-DC to/from far-end RNG
- 11. • 1.6T: super-channel solution? • Fiber relatively plentiful in DCI – likely still C- band only • Architectural optimizations: fast optical circuit switching? Beyond (2023+) Inter-DC (3) to/from far-end RNG
- 12. • sources: dedicated coherent transponders • line system: • proprietary closed system compatible with sources • proprietary NMS for control/monitoring – internal SDN unaware of optical layer • expensive and power-hungry! Yesterday Inter-region: optical architecture UI
- 13. • sources: ICO with bandwidth-variable 100G/150G/200G QPSK/8QAM/16QAM • line system • OLS with full alien-wave support • colorless / directional / flex-grid (C-band) • p2p topology – no mesh or CDC • lighting up segments in 2.4 Tb/s blocks Today Inter-region: optical architecture (2) SwitchFabric Layer 2/3 coherent line card switch chip MACsec switch chip MACsec switch chip MACsec switch chip MACsec DSP CFP2- ACO RX TX CFP2- ACO RX TX DSP CFP2- ACO RX TX CFP2- ACO RX TX DSP CFP2- ACO RX TX CFP2- ACO RX TX DSP CFP2- ACO RX TX CFP2- ACO RX TX
- 14. • sources: ICO with embedded “flex-QAM” 100G-600G, dynamic modulation changes ? • line system • C&L band day 1 • further disaggregation possible assuming standardized data models and APIs • in-house layer 0 controller • CDC / mesh ? benefits aren’t clear… layer 3 Tomorrow (2020+) Inter-region: optical architecture (3) SwitchFabric Layer 2/3 coherent line card switch chip MACsec switch chip MACsec switch chip MACsec switch chip MACsec DSP + OBO RX TX RX TX DSP + OBO RX TX RX TX DSP + OBO RX TX RX TX DSP + OBO RX TX RX TX
- 15. • maximally lighting fiber day 1 ? (more DCI-like) • when does regen everywhere make sense ? • further photonic integration will enable this from cost/power standpoint • benefits of SDM ? tough sell… Beyond (2023+) Inter-region: optical architecture (4)
- 16. Capacity granularity • 70% capacity gain possible 100G 150G 99% 43% 200G 100G 100G 150G 100G 150G 200G OFC 2016, paper M2J.2, Evaluation of Elastic Modulation Gains in Microsoft’s Optical Backbone in North America, M. Ghobadi
- 17. Inter-region: interop M.Filer, H. Chaouch, X. Wu, Toward Transport Ecosystem Interoperability Enabled by Vendor-Diverse Coherent Optical Sources Over an Open Line System, OSA JOCN vol 10 (2), 2018
- 18. Inter-region: interop (2) DUT bulk- mod bulk- mod shaped ASEshaped ASE bulk mod bulk mod M.Filer, H. Chaouch, X. Wu, Toward Transport Ecosystem Interoperability Enabled by Vendor-Diverse Coherent Optical Sources Over an Open Line System, OSA JOCN vol 10 (2), 2018
- 19. SiPh: Intra-/Inter-DC 100G Optic Allocation SiPh parts averaging <0.11% failure Real-time poll 02/2018 Note: only 100G deployed optics shown – not representative of total DC ecosystem distributions
- 20. InP / LiNbO3 100% SiPh 0% InP / LiNbO3 59% SiPh 41% SiPh: Inter-region [100G, 150G, 200G]
- 21. Bandwidth growth and drivers 2015 2016 2017 2018 #100GDWDMPorts Year