Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength



Hi Victor,
That is how Mike sees it. That does not need to be necessarily how things work out in the market. It seems to me that we are trying to guess which direction the market goes and I think we all agree that is hardly predictable. Additionally, if I recall right, we are not allowed to discuss market shares so probably it is better to leave it at this ...
Regards
Marek


From: Victor Blake [mailto:victorblake@xxxxxxx]
Sent: quinta-feira, 6 de Novembro de 2008 13:13
To: marek_haj@xxxxxxx; STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

To chmine in here ? I?d have to say that to me it sounds like the 1577 is the exception, not the 1590.

 

-Victor

 

From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek_haj@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

 

Hi Mike,

thanks for sharing Your point of view with us.

Please confirm whether I understand You right. You say that we should go with a wider window and carriers may require vendors to actually build equipment which complies to a certain part of this sub-band. In our case, we could hypothetically specify a downstream band between 1574 and 1600 nm while e.g. a narrow band option between 1574 and 1580 nm could be required by some carriers to remain compliant with their ODN. Is this what You're trying to relay in Your email ? Please confirm

Thank You

Marek

 


From: Mike Dudek [mailto:Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: quinta-feira, 6 de Novembro de 2008 10:22
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

As an outsider to 10GEPON, but member of IEEE 802.3 working group I?d like to suggest that the IEEE standard should be working to provide the best solution for the new future installs of the IEEE standard while paying attention to the existing infrastructure.     When you come to a point that you are having to drive the cost of the new standard higher in order to be compatible with existing infrastructure that may or may not exist in many applications I?d suggest that the IEEE standard should work for the long term low cost solution, while making it technically feasible for people with the existing infrastructure to add additional requirements to make it compatible with their existing infrastructure.   That way you do not burden the long term cost of new installs.     EG if the low cost solution needs a Tx window of xnm to x+30nm but for compatibility with a non-IEEE standard can only be xnm +10nm, then the IEEE spec should be xnm to x+30nm and individual vendors that are using the non-IEEE standard can impose the tighter (subset spec) of xnm to xnm +10nm.   (This obviously only applies if the PAR and objectives have not made compatibility with the non-IEEE standard a requirement.).   Please note my example is for illustration only the numbers in it are not meant to apply to this specific question.

 


From: Jim Farmer [mailto:Jim.Farmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:53 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

 

My primary concern is that the 1577 nm downstream wavelength is inconsistent with use of the 1550 nm broadcast (auxiliary) wavelength.  The problem is that the two wavelengths are too close together to allow us to build economical filters at the ONU to separate the two wavelengths.  It is a little easier with the 1590 nm wavelength, though it is still difficult.  Originally I wanted to specify the wavelength band as 1580 - 1600 nm as it was originally.  But I found that when I put in real filter characteristics, I still had an extremely narrow transition region for the filter.  So I accepted that we would have to narrow the transmit window.  I chose +/-3 nm (1587 - 1593 nm) following the reasoning for PR(X)30.  We are adding cost to the laser, but at the OLT, which is not as cost sensitive as is the ONU.

 

I also had to accept that the auxiliary wavelength was limited to 1550 - 1555 nm, even though commercial practice is to use wavelengths up to almost 1560 nm.  People may complain about this restriction, but I think in the end they will live with it.

 

Unfortunately I have not been able to get quantitative information on the filter complexity - I would like to see filter vendors jump in with comparative numbers.  Some vendors I spoke with gave me more pessimistic numbers than I used in preparing the slides.

 

So the application is for anyone who wants to use the 1550 nm broadcast wavelength.  This is the only way I see to possibly make use of 1550 nm overlay practical.  And it still demands a more difficult filter than we demand currently.  But presumably advances in the state-of-the-art will made the filter practical at some point.

 

Thanks,

jim

 

 

Jim Farmer, K4BSE
Chief Network Architect,
Enablence Technology
FTTx Networks Division.
1075 Windward Ridge Parkway
Alpharetta, GA 30005 USA
678-339-1045
678-640-0860 (cell)
jim.farmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.enablence.com

 


From: Frank Chang [mailto:ychang@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

I just reviewed this thread, and my interpretation to Jim?s slides is that-

 

1)       The argument is not for PR(X)30 as cooled TX is assumed because of tight power budget, so narrower 1577nm band considered feasible for PR(X)30.

  

2)       For PR10/20, possibly uncooled optical sources are assumed, so bring about the argument that larger wavelength band, such as wider 1590nm band, is only feasible.  

 

To satisfy this argument, basically call for the group to switch back to the wavelength plan originally specified in D2.0. So actually we are re-visiting the argument the group made during the baseline stage a year ago.

 

Jim- Can you confirm this is what you are looking for?

 

As it is clear the PR(X)30 will be assumed mainstream deployment which requires co-existence with installed 1G version, can anybody elaborate the scenarios on how PR10/20 going to be deployed? My question is weather PR10/20 scenarios has to use cooled or semi-cooled optical source?     

]

thanks

Frank C.

 


From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:22 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

 

To pile onto this thread, I have a question regarding Jim Farmer?s most recent presentation and Maurice?s support of it:

Did you notice that Jim?s presentation is asking to change the PR10/20 OLT transmitter wavelength range to 1587 to 1593nm?  

(At least, that is how I read it, but I should say that the exact numbers are not clear.)

 

Perhaps Jim can clarify exactly what he is asking for? that would be helpful.

 

Sincerely,

Frank E>

 

 


From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek_haj@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:12 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

 

Hi Maurice,

Just following the arguments You used in Your email: does that mean that You see PR(X)20 OLT transmitters as uncooled devices? Are the power levels we are targeting achievable using uncooled optics? As far as I understand, cooling is necessary not only to keep the central wavelength within the predefined range but also assure higher output power level. Can You comment on this?

Regards

Marek


From: Maurice Reintjes [mailto:maurice.reintjes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: quarta-feira, 5 de Novembro de 2008 12:49
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

 


Hi Victor:  I appreciate your comments, as they describe the existing conditions in the end solution space.

To that end I support your comments, and position which is also advocated by Jim Farmer.

My rational is that optical sources do not need to be so expensive and tightly temperature controlled when you can use the  1580-1600nm band,
and when you remove the tight wavelength requirement, optical , sources get cheaper, and thus increase the chances of wide
acceptance as was the case of 1GEPON, which uses low-cost optics.

Allowing a wider wavelength range also consumes less power, and can be viewed as being more "green";  something which was not
a direct component to the initial PAR, but should be a factor that all engineers take in to account when developing a new standard.

Best Regards

Maurice Reintjes
MindspeedTM
Hillsboro, Oregon,USA
Office Phone (503)-403-5370
Mobile (503)-701-0797

Victor Blake <victorblake@xxxxxxx>

11/04/2008 06:21 PM

Please respond to
Victor Blake <victorblake@xxxxxxx>

To

STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

cc

 

Subject

Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

 

 

 




Jim,
 
As an early supporter of 10GigEPON (starting at the CFI) I am writing to the task force to express my support for your proposal. I believe that the 1580-1600nm wavelength would be more appropriate for use in the North American and in particular US MSO market. This market is composed of operators have existing wavelengths in use of their plant. Some already have substantial EPON deployments.
 
As you have pointed out, 1577 (1574-1580nm) could be substantial problem for MSOs. Having the second wavelength available for this market need would help to avoid a conflict between 10GigEPON and broadcast video ? to which 10GigEPON would surely loose out. If the task force were to elect to keep 1590nm out of the plan, they would be spelling out certain disaster for 10GigEPON as we know specifically of the efforts to use 1590nm for current proposals for a next generation GPON solution. The result of keeping 1590nm out of 10GigEPON would be to force the MSO industry to GPON. I?ll just assume that is not the goal of the 10GigEPON Task Force, but it nevertheless would be the most likely outcome.
 
In fact it is no surprise to find that the GPON vendors are the ones most supportive of this proposed change.
 
I?ve communicated with a number of major US MSOs about this issue. The three I have directly received responses from all support 1590nm and wish to continue to see it as their first choice. Although these organizations are not directly represented in the IEEE today, they have from time to time participated in the past, and are certainly the largest EPON and 10GigEPON market in North America currently. For this reason, I urge the task force members to reach out to the MSO community and solicit their opinions if you do not already know where they stand.
 
Victor Blake
Independent Consultant

 



From: Jim Farmer [mailto:Jim.Farmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:
sábado, 1 de Novembro de 2008 15:59
To:
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:
[8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength

We request to make the attached presentation during the 10GEPON meeting in Dallas.  We remain concerned over the decision to drop the 1590 nm downstream band from the plan, for reasons shown in the attached.  Note that there are notes that go with most of the slides.  You can see them by going to View|Notes Page

Thanks,
Alan Brown

Jim Farmer

 

Jim Farmer, K4BSE
Chief Network Architect,

Enablence Technology

FTTx Networks Division.

1075 Windward Ridge Parkway

Alpharetta, GA 30005 USA

678-339-1045

678-640-0860 (cell)

jim.farmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

www.enablence.com

<<FilterCompare.ppt>>