| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi All; Some more edits to the latest version, first in response to the comments below: 1) Slide#3, add the assumptions for Tx and Rx, actually those are the 3 scenarios so far reported doable for the exemplary 29dB link budget. 2) Slide#4, I don't think sth wrong there, but I agree with the confusion. The X-axis label actually is the 20log(Q) after adjust bw penalty. As to "Input signal to noise ratio", I donot want to confuse with the optical one. As discussed previously, I rather avoid the optical gain as those depend on too many things. Besides, one extra slide added for FEC cost-saving considerations. A contributors' list is added from conf. call participants, let know if there is anything wrong. Thanks Frank C. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@huawei.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:33 AM To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FEC call details Dear All, Sorry I couldn't make it to the last call. I have edited Frank C.'s version 3, mainly addressing the framing slides at the back half of the slideset. My intent was to highlight each of the design choices, so as to make the preso more generic and awareness-building, and less of a position statement. A couple of comments on Frank C.'s section: On slide 3, various receiver sensitivities are put forward, but I think that the type of Rx (PIN or APD) is missing. This makes comparisons within the slide misleading. I suggest that a more detailed comparison be made. On slide 4, the chart on the left has its X-axis labeled "Net coding gain". This is not correct. I believe the label should say "Input signal to noise ratio". The chart on the right lists 'average power' on its X-axis - I assume that this was the optical average power going into an APD receiver (of unknown make and model). These details should be spelled out. We might put in a slide that puts up the generic transformation between option input power and electrical SNR. Finally, I would like to be added to the list of supporters. Regards, Frank Effenberger -----Original Message----- From: Frank Chang [mailto:ychang@VITESSE.COM] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 5:59 AM To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FEC call details All; Here quickly summarize the call on FEC discussion.... The call took about 1 hour. The attendees were: Glen Kramer, Ryan Hirth, Jeff Mandin, Petre Popescu, Paul Kolesar and Frank Chang. Frank Effenberger notify unable to attend due to sth. come up. Glen kindly provide the EA bridge to host the call. The group ran though the slideset of the algorithm part addressing coding gain vs. power budgets, the main topics of discussion as follows: 1. The group agreed to keep the topic generic, avoid making a position statement on any of the issues at this stage. These slides help bring the whole group up to speed on the topics. This discussion help generate the list of issues to be considered. 2. 29dB budget reqs was discussed in detail, SOA-based and FEC-based power budgets were compared. One suggestion was: as 29dB budget isnot yet the budget choice officially approved by the group, it's restated as an example under consideration. 3. Still questionable if FEC has to be mandatory for link budget. Comment this statement is better addressed when the study group concur on various power budgets. Further consideration was to consider the choice of FEC category: frame-based vs stream-based. 4. Discuss the correlation of coding gain vs. resultant optical gain. Concur the coding gain is a true rep. of FEC code performance. Suggest tabulate the code option vs. coding gain for various code alternatives. 5. Clarify the 64B/66B rate FEC option, this is standard based code specified in backplane and OIF-CEI-P. 6. Discuss latency issues, commonly believe there won't be an issue if fixed latency. 7. Time quanta - As to topic if the time quanta should be changed to match the 66 bit codeword. Glen propose he will reiterate his previous slides in coming meeting to make clear the time quanta doesnot need to change. 8. Path forward - The involved party going to review the new slides version (here as attached), will access if there is a need to proceed next call. Pls add comments if I miss anything. Thanks, Frank C. -----Original Message----- From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@teknovus.com] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:34 PM To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org Subject: [8023-10GEPON] FEC call details All, The conference call for FEC is planned for Monday, September 11th, 9:30 AM US Pacific time. The following is the bridge number, courtesy of the Ethernet Alliance: Dial in Number 1-866-228-9900 International Number 1-719-359-4032 Participant Passcode 383731 The bridge is reserved for 1.5 hrs. I hope this would be enough. Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@TEKNOVUS.COM] > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:50 PM > To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Presentation on FEC for 10G > > Frank, > > This is rather a short notice. I will see if I can reach the AE today. If > not, I will find an alternative conference call facility and will post the > details later tonight. > > Glen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Frank Chang [mailto:ychang@VITESSE.COM] > > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:25 AM > > To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org > > Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Presentation on FEC for 10G > > > > Glen; > > > > Right now the conf call. is planning to be next Monday 9:30AM PDT, no > > conflicts heard so far. Could you provide a EA bridge for this? The > agenda > > is for FEC associated discussions. (I believe Frank E. is traveling.) > > > > Frank C. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@teknovus.com] > > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:08 AM > > To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org > > Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Presentation on FEC for 10G > > > > Frank, > > > > Thank you for organizing the FEC discussions. > > > > Few people have asked me for a summary of the FEC call. Would you please, > > post to the reflector a short overview of the call: what was discussed > and > > any steps planned next. > > > > Also, if you plan another conf call, please announce it on the reflector, > > so > > that those who are interested, but missed the first call could join this > > time. > > > > I also want to remind everybody that the Ethernet Alliance has offered > > 10GEPON group a sponsorship in a form of hosting conference calls. > Please, > > let me know if you would like to have a conference call in preparation > for > > the September meeting. > > > > Regards, > > Glen > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:44 AM > > > To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org > > > Subject: [8023-10GEPON] Presentation on FEC for 10G > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > I am interested in putting together a presentation on FEC for 10G > > (serial) > > > PONs. Judging from the materials from the July meeting, I think that > > > there > > > is some common support for the following basic ideas: > > > > > > 1. FEC should be applied at the very lowest layer (streaming-FEC). > > > 2. FEC should be a mandatory part of the line code. > > > 3. FEC codeword size should be aligned with the other EPON structure > > sizes > > > (such as 66b blocks and MPCP time quanta) > > > > > > There are related topics that I don't think we've reached consensus > on: > > > a. Choice of basic FEC algorithm (e.g, RS, BCH, etc.) > > > b. Line-rate increasing versus MAC-rate reducing approach > > > c. Code-rate and objective gain values > > > (some of these require collaboration with PMD specialists.) > > > > > > If there are people who are interested in working with me on a > > > presentation > > > on these topic areas, please let me know. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Frank Effenberger > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@teknovus.com] > > > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:04 PM > > > To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org > > > Subject: [8023-10GEPON] presentations for September meeting > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > It appears that our next meeting will take place on September 18th and > > > 19th > > > (Monday and Tuesday) and the High-Speed SG will meet on 20th and 21st, > > so > > > there will be no overlap and interested people will be able to attend > > both > > > meetings. > > > > > > The meeting venue has not been finalized yet. A venue should be > > announced > > > at > > > least 30 days before the meeting, so expect the announcement very soon. > > > > > > Meanwhile, it is time to start working on presentations for the next > > > meeting. > > > > > > There are many specific topics/features that we have to reach > consensus > > > on: > > > > > > Downstream Wavelength > > > Upstream Wavelength > > > Power budgets > > > FEC: Optional or Mandatory > > > FEC Category: Stream-based vs. Frame-based > > > other topics - anything that is in scope of our PAR can be discussed. > > > > > > If you can think of any other topic not listed here, please propose it > > on > > > the reflector. > > > > > > > > > If you have opinion on any of these or other topics, make a > presentation > > > with arguments in favor of it. Remember, a proposal should have > 75% > > > support to get accepted as a baseline. It is a good idea to circulate > > > proposals on the reflector and get feedback, and to enlist additional > > > supporters. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Glen
2006sept-FEClinecoding-FC3FE2.ppt