Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
Frank and Glen,
I do not think a specification of Class B++ (29dB CHIL) of 1G-EPON is
mandatory to decide one of 10G-EPON.
Only a point we need to clarify is what type of an optical receiver is used
for Class B++ of 1G-EPON.
I believe every carrier will use or is using APD for it.
Is my assumption wrong?
Sincerely yours,
Tsutomu Tatsuta
At 07:51 07/02/23, Glen Kramer wrote:
>Frank E. and All,
>
>> My only point is that the 1G version of the 29 dB loss is
>> currently unspecified, but is in fact what is in the field.
>
>The matter of fact that 29dB implementations are somewhat different.
>Opening this debate would be a huge can of worms, as someone's deployed
>devices would suddenly become "standard" and someone else's deployed
>devices would suddenly become "non-standard". And this extra work would not
>bring us a bit closer to our stated goal.
>
>
>I also want to emphasize that our approved PAR says
>"The scope of this project is to amend IEEE Std 802.3 to add physical layer
>specifications and management parameters for symmetric and/or asymmetric
>operation at 10 Gb/s on point-to-multipoint passive optical networks."
>
>It is not in our charter to make improvements to 1Gb/s EPON, such as
>defining 29dB budget for 1Gb/s EPON. Recently another TF ran into big
>problems when their draft was perceived to not match the stated scope.
>
>The purpose of asymmetric EPON is to allow carriers to keep upstream
>exactly as it is being deployed today. Ideally I'd like the 10G PMD clause
>to simply state "For upstream PMD parameters for asymmetric EPON, refer to
>Clause 60" with the understanding that vendors will use their current high
>power budget upstream implementations when they use class B++ in the
>downstream.
>
>Any comments?
>
>
>Glen
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:53 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
>
>Dear Duane,
>
>Hold on, now. Don't paint me with the same brush!
>I think Mr. Chang went too far in his Email about 'work load'.
>
>For the record, Mr. Effenberger believes that we should standardize 3
>channel loss systems.
>My only point is that the 1G version of the 29 dB loss is currently
>unspecified, but is in fact what is in the field.
>So, we should hear from the guys in the field on their version of clause 60.
>
>Sincerely,
>Mr. Effenberger
>
>________________________________________
>From: Duane Remein [mailto:duane.remein@ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:02 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
>
>Frank & Frank,
>I believe the straw polls we took clearly indicated we favored three plans;
>~20, ~24 and ~29 dBm. I agree a single plan would be less work load. Are
>you proposing we take another straw poll to see if anything has changed.
>Duane
>
>Straw Poll Results
>How many 10 Gb Optical Power Budgets should we standardize on
>(Compatibility with PX10 and PX20 is assumed to be a requirement)?
>1: 1
>2: 6
>3: 23
>Which 3 Maximum Channel Insertion Loss do you prefer?
>~20dB, ~24dB, ~28 dB (i.e. PX10, PX20, B+):
>~20dB, ~24dB, ~29 dB (i.e. PX10, PX20, B++):
>~20dB, ~24dB, ~30 dB (i.e. PX10, PX20, C): Y:
>6
>13
>2
>
>
>Frank Chang wrote:
>Dear Frank;
>
>I realized this. I am very glad you make this straight. We used to plan the
>survey to find the answer on how much portion of market for each budget,
>now if 1G EPON does NOT use PX-10 or PX-20 optics, then the group really
>need to define only one 29dB budget instead of three. Also this higher one
>can cover the lower ones. This will significantly simplify the group work load.
>
>Regards
>Frank C.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@huawei.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:50 AM
>To: Frank Chang; STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
>
>Dear Frank,
>
>Unfortunately, you are mistaken:
>The current 1G EPON does NOT use PX-10 or PX-20 optics.
>NTT has been telling us that for about a year now.
>
>Regards,
>Frank E.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank Chang [mailto:ychang@VITESSE.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:58 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
>
>Frank et al.
>
>I have asked the group similar questions before but in different way. My
>interpretation is that we maynot have to do 1/10 coexistence for 29dB
>budget. If current 1G use PX-10 and PX-20 optics specified at 20dB and 24dB,
>then assuming 10G optics going to share the same fiber installment, so it
>doesnot make any sense to me we have to specify 10G budget as 29dB for the
>same ODN. I donot think the extra loss form connector hold true here.
>
>My understanding 1/10 coexistence is only for 20dB and 24dB budgets, 29dB
>budget will be a standalone case for 10G, addressing the apps similar to
>gpon B+ case, unless the current 1G deployment use aggressive budgets other
>than spec'd.
>
>Regards
>Frank C.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@huawei.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:03 AM
>To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
>
>Dear All,
>
>I have an observation to make... It seems that the current standard
>specifies loss budgets for PX-10 and PX-20 optics at 20dB and 24dB.
>However, it should be clear by now that the actual fielded optics are in
>most cases producing an Insertion Loss budget of 29dB. I think we are
>missing a standard specification for this.
>
>If that was all, then IEEE could decide to revise clause 60 (or whatever
>editorial method you want to do), or decide not to (and leave the market to
>its own devices: pun intended). However, our task force has embarked on the
>standardization of 10/1 optics, and it seems that many folks want to
>consider the 29dB budget, and compatibility with 1/1G EPON is also desired.
>So, I don't think we have a choice - we need to define what the 29 dB power
>budget is for 1G EPON. (And note: by power budget, I mean the specification
>of the transmitter and receiver power ranges, any penalties that come to
>bear - in short, everything you find in clause 60.)
>
>If we don't specify the budget of the practical 1G EPON optics, then we
>cannot do a proper job of considering compatibility, shared use of the
>1310nm channel, and so forth. It is critical.
>
>So, since we seem to have a gathering of the Japanese companies that are
>deeply involved in the 1G EPON deployments, it is a good time to ask them to
>please present, to our task force, what is their version of clause 60 for
>the "29dB" 1G EPON systems, in the field today.
>
>Sincerely,
>Frank Effenberger
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Motoyuki TAKIZAWA [mailto:mtaki@ACCESS.FUJITSU.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:47 AM
>To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
>
>All,
>
>As I was assigned in the last telecon to form a group to work
>on a Tx and Rx characteristic table for the 29dB CHIL especially
>from the view point of system vendors, we had a discussion on it
>among some Japanese members.
>I don't submit the draft table to here now. We did have draft
>characteristic tables from some vendors but we ended up modifying
>them again considering the issues we came up with in the call.
>
>This is an intermediate report of our talk.
>
>
><Date>
>Feb 20, 1:00PM-3:00PM JST
>
><Participants>
>Tsutomu Tatsuta NTT
>Akihiro Otaka NTT
>Ken-ichi Suzuki NTT
>Tomoaki Masuta NEC
>Akio Tajima NEC
>Toshiaki Mukojima Oki
>Shinji Tsuji Sumitomo
>Hiroki Ikeda Hitachi
>Satoshi Shirai Mitsubishi
>Naoki Suzuki Mitsubishi
>Hiroshi Hamano Fujitsu Laboratory
>Tetsuya Yokomoto Fujitsu Access
>Motoyuki Takizawa Fujitsu Access
>
><Assumption>
>The assumption of wavelengths were 1.31um for US and 1.57um for DS,
>following the solution 3 in the presentation below.
>http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_01/3av_0701_tatsuta_1.pdf
>
><Downstream>
>The main point was wheather applying PIN-PD or APD in the ONU.
>Needless to say, PIN should be better for the cost reason, however
>we need to take a risk applying 'high power' SOA at the OLT that
>has less maturity (reliability).
>One idea of judging this is if the ONUs should have the same
>architecture for each class(PX10, PX20, ClassB++) as same as 802.3ah
>standard. It will have an influence on cost and selection for pieces
>of components both on the OLT/ONU.
>
><Upstream>
>"PD + Preamp -------- DFB(EML)" would be a preferable solution
>for many of us. But we need a narrow band filter between
>Preamp(SOA) and PD and it doesn't seem we can have 1G/10G
>coexistence at the moment for this reason because 1GEPON needs
>100nm band around 1310nm.
>Possible solutions are:
> - Seeking possibility of increasing LD(DFB/EML) power
> - Considering another appropriate wavelength for US
>Another topic was the availability of uncooled laser @10G
>with broad range of temperature(-40 to +85 degrees C), which
>will be expected to use for PX10/PX20.
>
><Action Item>
>- Revise the draft charasteristic table
> DS: PD vs APD, considering if all ONUs should have the
> same arthitecture for each class.
> US: Study two solutions in detail.
>- Study availability of uncooled 10G laser with broad temperature
> range(-40 to +85 degrees C).
>
>
>Next discussion will be held on 2/23 JST.
>
>
>
>[Clarification]
>This local talk is actually not a closed one but I think it is
>important to make a draft ASAP and that it is good to have a
>local discussion among Japanese System Vendors first like I
>was asked to in the last telecon, maybe for the reason of
>timezone, language, etc...
>I think I'll report back to the ad hoc here and we'll have a
>fruitful discussion.
>
>
>Best Regards,
>--
>Motoyuki Takizawa
>Fujitsu Access Ltd. R&D Center
>