Hi Martin - we missed you on the call. We assumed/hoped you would
participate in this work.
We didn't get into your question too much in the call. I recommended that
anyone interested should consider a range of transmitters (drivers, coupling
circuits, lasers, etc.) that might reflect their own objectives of performance
& margin and yield & cost, even while perhaps not fully knowing the
relationship to overall LRM penalties. Each company may have a different view.
Everyone knows that faster and more linear transmitters will produce lower
penalties and the budget is tight, so I'm expecting reasonableness to play.
I am reluctant to narrow it down beyond this at this point.
This raised a question about willingness to show data. Certainly ClariPhy,
upon advisement to do so, would keep any results of its work anonymous. I'm
hoping that some at least some waveforms can be shared to be able to simulation
As far as the budget and how much it allows, that is still ahead of us. The
idea is to gather data on what is and what folks want, and trade it off vs. all
the other items in the budget (such as 220 vs. 300 meters, % coverage, Rx
sensitivity, Tx range, etc.). We're trying not to pre-suppose the outcome at
this point. We need to get the data first and then determine what it tells
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:48
Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Notes for TP2 call
We plan to run
simulations using various Tx realistic characteristics (rate equations+
Gaussian etc) for support of the objective as listed below. The question
is what are ‘realistic’ characteristics? A starting point could be that
they barely pass the eye mask (this leads to ~47 ps rise/fall time). Typical
10G Txs have, however, lower rise-fall time than the ~47ps since a large
margin is desired. One could argue that a Tx/Rx with ~47ps rise/fall time is
already a ‘relaxed’ transmitter (which the budget may not allow for).
discussion/direction on what ‘realistic’ characteristics are in order to focus
Any plans on
distributing the various Tx waveforms that have been generated/captured by
Clarify and others?
On Behalf Of Tom
Sent: 29. oktober
Subject: [10GMMF] Notes for TP2 call
All - here are my notes for today's (10/28) call.
Feedback would be appreciated.
Greg Lecheminant, Agilent
Andre Van Schyndel,
Others? Please let me
- Andre invited
feedback on the list of laser non-idealities sent to the reflector this
- Spent most of
the time discussing the work plan/outline I sent to the reflector 10/26 for
testing numerous waveforms for penalties, etc.
- Nick said that
work should also look for direct relationships between TP2 properties and
penalties, such as rise/fall times, overshoot, asymmetries, etc. Piers
added that eye diagrams should be captured for the same purposes.
- Discussed if
relationship between Gaussian pulse shape and more realistic waveshapes
had been established - no. Tom's thoughts are that a relationship could be
established based on an agreed reference Rx, but this has not been
established. Piers said that it is important to know if ranking (fiber vs.
penalty) retained the same order over the Cambridge set with various
waveforms and EDC architectures (I probably did not record this right
- It will be
more clear what E/O waveshape should be used for TP3 testing after these
tests/sims are completed.
agreement that 4 samples per bit was not adequate, that 8-16 was the
agreement that PRBS10 is better than PRBS7 for this work, due to
Tx/channel/Rx memories, but some may be limited by capture record length
(8 samples per UI x 1023 UI = 8184 points, but some scopes are limited to
- Do both 220
and 300 meters sims.
- Run multiple
EDC configurations to learn more about penalties and
- Work required
is clear. Objective is to do as much of the plan as possible and present
any conclusions in Nov. TBD.
- I also plan on
presenting a modified version of TP2/TP3/budget slides discussed
previously on the calls.
- Others should
begin thinking about TP2 presentations.
- Date: Thurs,
11/06/04 (regular day/time)
agenda (for 10/28)
previous notes (above)
for TP2 waveform analysis (sent 10/26 8:57
view" (mask) progress?
- More on
budget and metrics?
Any comments or changes, please let me