Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
Dear Frank;
Quick comment, I double check your calculation is right to me. OMA -27.6dBm at 10dB ER is AOP -29.7dBm.
The difference results from different way to evaluate penalty. GPON allocate 0.5-1dB for penalty, mostly from dispersion, while traditional ethernet use stress sens. by taking into account dispersion, jitter, ER/eye penalty and ISI etc, the penalty is anywhere about 2.5-4dB.
Another point I'd like to mention gpon B+ is 29dB link budget incls penalty, while we are talking 29dB CHIL B++, with penalty as extra.
Regards
-Frank C.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@huawei.com]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:47 AM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
Dear All,
Just for my own double checking, the OMA of -27.6 dBm is equivalent to a
power sensitivity of -29.73 dBm at an extinction ratio of 10 dB. Right?
Interesting, because the G-PON B+ spec for similar rates is -28 dBm (at an
ER of 10 dB, which is how the ITU specs are written).
Starting at -29.73 dBm, and backing out 29 dB of IL, and (say) 1.23 dB of
penalty (which I think you will need, given the FP laser being used), this
brings us to 0.5 dBm min launch power for an ONT (again at 10 dB ER). This
happens to be the G-PON B+ spec for the ONT min launch.
Sincerely,
Frank Effenberger.
-----Original Message-----
From: TATSUTA [mailto:tatsuta@ansl.ntt.co.jp]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:06 AM
To: Frank Effenberger; STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
Dear Frank,
I reconsidered what you said, and I realized we needed to clarify a
receiver spec of 1G-EPON@29dBm CHIL to discuss the dual-rate burst mode
receiver.
Our spec is
Receiver sensitivity OMA (max) : -27.6dBm
Is it enough to consider the dual-rate burst mode receiver?
Sincerely yours,
Tsutomu TATSUTA
At 11:47 07/02/23, Frank Effenberger wrote:
>Dear Tatsuta-san,
>
>You have come to the group, asking us to consider interoperability with
the
>29 dB IL PONs that you have deployed, AND compatibility with the existing
29
>dB capable 1G EPONs you have deployed. And, I would like to give it to
you.
>But, in order for me to be compatible with something, I have to know what
>that something is. Right now, the 29 dB system is something of a
>proprietary secret, or so it seems. I can talk to certain vendors for
their
>answers, but that is inconsistent and hardly authoritative.
>
>So, I think that we need to get the 29 dB current situation completely out
>in the open, and stop hiding. That is, if you want to have any credible
>chance of actually producing a workable system at 29 dB.
>
>The alternative is that the group should just forget about the 29 dB
>situation. We can just standardize the 20 and 24 dB cases, and then rely
on
>others to figure out the 29 dB solution behind closed doors.
>
>Is that what you really want?
>
>Sincerely,
>Frank Effenberger
>
>p.s. And, no, it is not enough to say that we are using an APD for 1G
>upstream. A receiver is much more than the APD, and the dual-rate burst
>mode APD device issue is what is really forcing this issue. If we want to
>do a valid job in my little ad-hoc, I need to know what sensitivity at 1G
>(upstream) the dual rate receiver needs to have.
>
>And, even if we went to a purely WDM coexistence approach, we need to know
>the power levels of the 1G interferer signals to estimate the crosstalk.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TATSUTA [mailto:tatsuta@ANSL.NTT.CO.JP]
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:45 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: 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
> >
**********************************
NTT¡¡¥¢¥¯¥»¥¹¥µ©`¥Ó¥¹¥·¥¹¥Æ¥àÑо¿Ëù
¹â¥¢¥¯¥»¥¹¥·¥¹¥Æ¥à¥×¥í¥¸¥§¥¯¥È
¥Õ¥ë¥µ©`¥Ó¥¹¥¢¥¯¥»¥¹G
Á¢ÌŬ
ëŠÔ’·¬ºÅ£º043-211-3115£¨Ö±Í¨£©
FAX·¬ºÅ£º043-211-8875
**********************************