Re: [8023-10GEPON] Ad hoc on 10GEPON channel model
All,
Figure 2 of http://literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5988-5908EN.pdf may help.
Piers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akihiro Otaka [mailto:ootaka@ANSL.NTT.CO.JP]
> Sent: 22 November 2006 05:38
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Ad hoc on 10GEPON channel model
>
> Dear, Frnk E, Piers and all,
>
> This is Akihiro OTAKA from NTT.
>
> As Frank mentioned, we have to understand the definitions.
> And I think I don't understand these.
> Could you tell me where can I find the IEEE-definitions?
>
> Anyway, what I'd like to require for the 10GE-PON is
> to be consistent with our exsisting ODNs.
> So I think it is better to understand the "budget" into
> at least two parts.
> - max channel insertion loss; which is basicaly independent
> from the transmission systems.
> - penalty; which is related to the characteristics of the
> transmitter and reciever of 10GE-PON.
>
> Regards,
>
> A.OTAKA
>
>
>
> At 07:46 06/11/22, Frank Effenberger wrote:
> >147a263.gif
> >
> >
> >Dear Piers,
> >
> >I think that there is plenty of common ground to work on
> here, and I知
> >sure that this time, we will work out a common framework of
> terms that
> >will satisfy both the IEEE and ITU formalisms. At least,
> that is my hope.
> >
> >As for the last sentence you mentioned, the idea is not that
> the optical
> >penalty would be measured？Indeed, this would be impossible.
> The idea is
> >that the operator should design his fiber route and figure
> out what his
> >penalties should be. I think this approach is especially
> important for
> >the PON application, where we may have various other systems
> sharing the
> >same fiber. In such a system, the path penalty is really beyond the
> >control of the equipment manufacturer.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Frank E
> >
> >
>