All - here are my notes for the 8/26 TP2 call. Please send comments or
corrections if needed.
Attendees (no order)
- Jesper Hanberg, Intel
- Jan Peeters Weem, Intel
- John Jaeger, Big Bear
- Lew Aronson, Finisar
- Yi Sun, OFS
- Yu Sun, Optium
- John Dallesasse, Emcore
- Bala Mayampurath, Vitesse
- Piers Dawe, Agilent
- Tom Lindsay, ClariPhy
Summary objective (repeated from before)
Present a proposal for TP2 signaling parameters and associated conformance
testing at the September Meeting. The work must consider and provide tradeoff
information among component cost, test cost, and power penalties.
Reduction in power may be another outcome to consider.
- Proposed agenda was approved (see below).
- Previous notes (from 8/19 call) were approved.
Progress, technical discussions
There were no new presentations this week.
The only significant discussions involved follow-on to the Intel
presentation from the week before, 8/19. Jesper sent an email 8/26 that
addressed some of the questions posed from the 8/19 call.
- Laser modeling
- A slide was included in the 8/26 email that depicted a laser response
(perfect rectangular current waveform) with more peaking than used in the
modeling in the 8/19 presentation. Higher peaking was created by reducing
the gain compression coefficient and by reducing the operating (now 50 mA)
and modulation currents (now 20-80 mA). The latter changes should also
reduce ROF. The slide shows some important laser values.
- Some comments were that ROF is high (shown at 14.6 GHz, try cases closer
to 10 GHz), that some lasers have less damping (more ringing), and that the
filtered mask limits could be used to set limits.
- The drive waveform in the 8/19 presentation used filtering but no
reflections (or multiple reflections).
- If anyone has suggestions on laser settings or drive waveforms, please get
in touch with Jesper.
- A MMSE method was used to determine the EDC coefficients.
- hanberg_1_0304 briefly mentions the method for determining BER. It appears
to use the signal to rms noise ratios for 8 binary triplets at a slicer
- I suspect there are more questions on the details of these 2 methods
(speaking for myself, anyway...).
- A single fiber was used in the 8/19 presentation. It is the one with the
22nd worse PIE-L response in the Cambridge model set (out of 65 fibers?),
taken from the end with the greatest PIE-L value.
- Jesper acknowledged that his work did not include the effects of RIN, but
expected the additional impairment would be on the order of 1/2 dB.
- Intel did some investigation of more taps for FFE (up to 9), but did not
see much improvement compared to the 5 used in the 8/19 presentation. Jesper
believes the limitation may be due to laser nonlinearities. DFE taps showed
greatly improved performance over FFE.
- There was a question on why the results of some of the DFE
simulations were better than predicted by (ideal) PIE-D. Jesper thinks it may
be a combination of rounding errors and that the simulations were done
for a BER of 1E-9.
Next call (9/2, 9 AM Pacific time)
- Cost vs. performance studies (Opnext, Bookham)?
- Other presentations encouraged
- Cost trends
- Penalties and test metrics vs. parameters (and try to relate to cost
- TP2 test metrics (test and methods)
cell: (206) 790-3240
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:59
Subject: [10GMMF] Reminder for TP2 call,
Meeting details (same numbers as before):
Date: Thurs, 8/26/04 (regular day/time)
Time: 9:00 AM
Duration: 1:00 goal, 1:30 max
Access code: 421721#
Approve previous minutes (see below)
Questions for Intel (from 8/19 presentation)
- How were EDC coefficients were determined and how was BER calculated
- Where does fiber used line up in the Cambridge set? What cumulative
percentage does it represent of the installed base?
- Why are some results in slide 13 better than ideal PIE-D?
- New presentations/results?
- Penalties (relative to -L) and test metrics vs. TP2 parameters (try to
relate to cost trends)
- Lasers with overshoot and ringing
- More realistic electrical drive modeling to include reflections
- Other tap combinations for FFE and DFE
TP2 test metrics (specs and