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

RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM




Eric,

I need to clarify a couple of points that you made which are somewhat
misleading:

1.  "There is never a patch-cord required for 850 CWDM"  You state this as
if it is an advantage with respect to 1300-nm WWDM!!
To meet the 802.3ae objectives as stated, there is no patch cord required
for 1300-nm WWDM either.  This was the point of Dave's original e-mail.  The
only time you need a patch cord is if you want to achieve 300-m on
DMD-challenged 62.5-micron fiber, something which is completely impossible
using 850 CWDM.  

2.  "... the 1300nm lasers and multiplexer have a higher cost than those
required for 850nm CWDM"  Yes, the 1300-nm edge emitters are somewhat higher
cost than 850-nm VCSELs, but the multiplexer we use for 1300-nm WWDM is not
any more expensive than that used for 850-nm CWDM.  In fact it is less
expensive.

I will be personally very surprised if the cost differential between 850-nm
CWDM and 1300-nm WWDM is anywhere close to some of the estimates that I have
seen presented by many 850-nm advocates on this reflector and at the
meetings.  1300-nm WWDM is a low-cost solution which will satisfy ALL the
multimode and single-mode objectives, from 100m up to 10km, including
support for 300m over the installed base of 62.5-micron fiber. 


Brian Lemoff

***********************************************************************
Brian E. Lemoff, Ph.D.
Project Manager
LAN/MAN Optical Technologies
Agilent Laboratories
3500 Deer Creek Rd., MS 26M-9
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1392

phone:  (650) 485-8957
FAX:     (650) 485-3626
email:   brian_lemoff@xxxxxxxxxxx 
***********************************************************************





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Grann [mailto:grann@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:20 PM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> 
> 
> 
> Dave,
> 
> I would like to make it clear that 850nm CWDM does not 
> require any special
> launches to achieve the 100m (installed) and the 300m (MMF) 
> objectives.  Per
> Paul Kolesar's previous email, an overfilled launch on new 
> multi-mode fiber
> results in a minimum bandwidth of 500MHz.km, which equates to 
> 300m for 850nm
> CWDM.  Installed 50 micron fiber also has a minimum bandwidth 
> of 500MHz.km,
> which equates to 300m for 850nm CWDM.
> 
> As you indicated, 850nm CWDM has a lower cost than the 1300nm 
> WWDM.  In
> addition to the tolerance differences you mentioned, the 
> 1300nm lasers and
> multiplexer have a higher cost than those required for 850nm 
> CWDM.  Lastly,
> there is never a patch cord required for 850nm CWDM.
> 
> In summary, 850nm CWDM is a multi-mode optimized solution for 
> the 100m and
> 300m objectives.
> 
> Eric Grann
> Blaze Network Products
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dave Dolfi 3764
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 12:21 PM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: dave_dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Paul,
> 
> I had a feeling I'd hear from you on this, and you didn't disappoint
> me! Thank you for your detailed response.  You seem to be saying
> two things.  First, you describe what is basically a doughnut shaped
> launch which will both satisfy the launch requirement for the 
> new fiber
> to achieve greater than its OFL bandwidth, and at the same time,
> guarantee that the OFL bandwidth is achieved on the installed base
> of 62.5 um MMF.  However, you also seem to be saying that it doesn't
> matter anyway, since ANY launch will achieve the OFL bandwidth on the
> 62.5 um installed base. (I assume that you are only referring to SX,
> since if it were true for LX as well we wouldn't need patch cords).
> 
> With respect to your first statement, I would reply that the launch
> you describe can certainly be classified as a "conditioned" launch.
> I don't think it could easily be achieved with multiple sources,
> at least not with the kind of simple multiplexers which have been
> proposed by companies such as Blaze and Agilent.  I also question
> whether the tolerances required by such a launch would allow the
> loose, multimode type tolerances which the 850 nm CWDM advocates have
> claimed for this PMD, and which form the basis of their claim of
> lower cost relative to 1300 nm WWDM.  If this launch is really
> necessary for 850 nm CWDM to work, then these questions need to
> be addressed.
> 
> With respect to your second statement, I would refer you to the work
> that was done by Agilent (HP at the time) during the DMD studies of
> 802.3z, particularly the presentation to 802.3z by Lewis Aronson at
> the March, 1998 meeting of 802.3z (available at the following URL:
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/z/public/presentations/).
> There are measurements presented there on both 62.5 um and 50 um
> MMF at short wavelength.  I'm not in a position to challenge your
> assertion regarding the absence of launch restrictions at short
> wavelength (you're the expert here!) but I would appreciate it if
> you look over this paper and verify that the results presented are
> consistent with your statement.
> 
> 
> Dave Dolfi
> Agilent Technologies
> 
> 
> > From owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx Fri Aug  4 09:14:56 PDT 2000
> > Return-Path: <owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> > Received: from unicorn.labs.agilent.com (unicorn.labs.agilent.com
> [130.29.252.5])
> 	by aldolfi.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 
> AgilentLabs
> Workstation) with ESMTP id JAA19492
> 	for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 
> 09:14:56 -0700
> (PDT)
> > Received: from alexed.labs.agilent.com (alexed.labs.agilent.com
> [130.29.252.59])
> 	by unicorn.labs.agilent.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/Agilent Labs 
> Mail Hub v 01.00
> 2000/06/20) with SMTP id e74GEtj28086
> 	for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 
> 09:14:55 -0700
> (PDT)
> > Received: from 130.29.252.5 by alexed.labs.agilent.com 
> (InterScan E-Mail
> VirusWall NT); Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:14:55 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
> > Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com 
> [15.255.168.31])
> 	by unicorn.labs.agilent.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/Agilent Labs 
> Mail Hub v 01.00
> 2000/06/20) with ESMTP id e74GErv28067;
> 	Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com (hplms2.hpl.hp.com [15.0.152.33])
> 	by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) 
> with ESMTP id
> JAA28307;
> 	Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com 
> [15.255.168.31])
> 	by hplms2.hpl.hp.com (8.10.2/8.10.2 HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id
> e74GEpA06527;
> 	Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3])
> 	by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) 
> with ESMTP id
> JAA28302;
> 	Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)	id LAA28587; 
> Fri, 4 Aug 2000
> 11:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
> > Message-ID:
> <4490F7068AC0D111A7120008C72878EC04E6CBA6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> cent.com>
> > From: "Kolesar, Paul F (Paul)" <pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> > Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:42:30 -0400
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Precedence: bulk
> > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients 
> <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
> > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to  majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Content-Length: 9199
> > Status: RO
> >
> >
> > Dave Dolfi,
> >
> > I would like to address your concerns over launch conditions.
> >
> > The launch requirement for the new 50 um fiber is presently 
> specified as
> >=
> > 85% encircled flux within a 16 um radius of the center of 
> the fiber. This
> is
> > not much different than the launch requirement determined 
> to be optimal
> for
> > enhanced 62.5 um fiber which is <= 25% encircled flux 
> within 4.5 um radius
> > and >= 75% within 15 um radius of the center of the fiber. The main
> > difference is that the 62.5 um spec limits the amount of 
> power allowed in
> > the very center of the fiber (within 4.5 um radius) while 
> the 50 um spec
> has
> > no such limitation. But, the similarity of the outer radii 
> specification
> > (85% within 16 um vs 75% within 15 um) permits solutions 
> that meet both
> > requirements simultaneously. In short, the overall power 
> concentration in
> > the center of the 50 um fiber is not required to be much 
> different than
> that
> > for enhanced 62.5 fiber.
> >
> > Further, the TIA FO2.2 data indicates launches that meet the above
> > requirements for enhanced 62.5 um fibers do not cause 
> degradation of the
> > bandwidth below the OFL specification on installed-base 
> 62.5 um fibers. In
> > fact, such launches usually cause bandwidth enhancement. By 
> combining
> these
> > launches with 62.5 um fibers tested and determined to produce higher
> > restricted launch bandwidth, we can guarantee enhanced performance.
> Perhaps
> > even more to the point, the data collected by both the TIA 
> and IEEE on
> this
> > subject has not shown any launch condition that caused the 
> bandwidth to
> > collapse below the 160 MHz-km OFL spec for 62.5 um fiber. 
> This includes
> > launches produced by single-transverse mode "CD" lasers as well as
> > multi-transverse mode VCSELs with various spot sizes and numerical
> > apertures. It also includes Radial Overfilled Launches that 
> were developed
> > as a possible test launch condition by the IEEE MBI study 
> group, which are
> > said to extract the "worst case" modal bandwidth for any 
> laser launch. In
> > summary, there is no evidence of  any launch condition that 
> causes less
> than
> > 160 MHz-km bandwidth from the installed base of 62.5 um 
> fiber. The 100 m
> > capability of the 850 CWDM PMD is based on 160 MHz-km bandwidths.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Paul Kolesar
> >
> > 	----------
> > 	From:  Dave Dolfi 3764 [SMTP:dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > 	Sent:  Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:17 PM
> > 	To:  stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; billw@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 	Cc:  dave_dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 	Subject:  RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> >
> >
> > 	Dear Bill,
> >
> > 	I'm happy that you agree with my summary of the patch cord
> > situation.
> > 	Unfortulately, I'm not sure that I agree with 
> everything you seem
> > 	to be saying about 850 nm CWDM.  Specifically, while I 
> agree that
> > 	you could specify a VCSEL and a mux design which would 
> achieve 100
> > 	meters on the installed 62.5 um MMF OR > 550 meters on the new
> > enhanced
> > 	bandwidth 50 um MMF, I'm not sure that a single design 
> could achieve
> >
> > 	both at the same time.
> >
> > 	The 62.5 um conventional fiber requires a large spot at 
> its input to
> > 	mitigate potential DMD problems if too much of the 
> excitation is in
> > 	the central portion of the fiber, while the new fiber requires a
> > 	small spot centered at its input in order to satisfy 
> the encircled
> > flux
> > 	requirement necessary to achieve the higher bandwidth.  Can you
> > really
> > 	achieve both of these at the same time?
> >
> > 	I think you need to prove that this is true before you 
> can claim to
> > 	simultaneously achieve the bandwidths you are claiming over both
> > fiber
> > 	types.
> >
> >
> > 	Dave Dolfi
> > 	Agilent Technologies
> >
> >
> > 	> From owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx Thu Aug  3 
> 11:18:07 PDT 2000
> > 	> Return-Path: <owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> > 	> Received: from unicorn.labs.agilent.com 
> (unicorn.labs.agilent.com
> > 	[130.29.252.5])
> > 		by aldolfi.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3
> > AgilentLabs
> > 	Workstation) with ESMTP id LAA18859
> > 		for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 3 Aug 2000
> > 11:18:07 -0700
> > 	(PDT)
> > 	> Received: from alex1.labs.agilent.com (alex1.labs.agilent.com
> > [130.29.252.55])
> > 		by unicorn.labs.agilent.com 
> (8.10.2/8.10.2/Agilent Labs Mail
> > Hub v 01.00
> > 	2000/06/20) with SMTP id e73II6c16414
> > 		for <dolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 3 Aug 2000
> > 11:18:06 -0700
> > 	(PDT)
> > 	> Received: from 130.29.252.5 by alex1.labs.agilent.com 
> (InterScan
> > E-Mail
> > 	VirusWall NT); Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:15:34 -0700 (Pacific Daylight
> > Time)
> > 	> Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com
> > [15.255.168.31])
> > 		by unicorn.labs.agilent.com 
> (8.10.2/8.10.2/Agilent Labs Mail
> > Hub v 01.00
> > 	2000/06/20) with ESMTP id e73II5x16406;
> > 		Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
> > 	> Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com (hplms2.hpl.hp.com 
> [15.0.152.33])
> > 		by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 
> (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with
> > ESMTP id
> > 	LAA15401;
> > 		Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
> > 	> Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com
> > [15.255.168.31])
> > 		by hplms2.hpl.hp.com (8.10.2/8.10.2 HPL-PA Hub) 
> with ESMTP
> > id
> > 	e73II2e24872;
> > 		Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
> > 	> Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org 
> [199.172.136.3])
> > 		by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 
> (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with
> > ESMTP id
> > 	LAA15314;
> > 		Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
> > 	> Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)	id 
> NAA03725; Thu, 3
> > Aug 2000
> > 	13:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
> > 	> Reply-To: <billw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 	> From: "Bill Wiedemann" <billw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 	> To: <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> > 	> Subject: RE: Patch cord for 1300 WWDM
> > 	> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:38:21 -0700
> > 	> Message-ID: <A0DC08D4103BD411A9DC009027B0B6350E8130@MAIL>
> > 	> MIME-Version: 1.0
> > 	> Content-Type: text/plain;
> > 		charset="iso-8859-1"
> > 	> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > 	> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> > 	> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > 	> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
> > 	> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> > 	> In-Reply-To: <A0DC08D4103BD411A9DC009027B0B63514345C@MAIL>
> > 	> Importance: Normal
> > 	> Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > 	> Precedence: bulk
> > 	> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients
> > <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 	> X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
> > 	> X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to  
> majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 	> X-Moderator-Address: 
> stds-802-3-hssg-approval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 	> Content-Length: 2823
> > 	> Status: RO
> > 	>
> > 	>
> > 	> Thank You.
> > 	> Everything you say is correct.  850CWDM has been designed to
> > directly meet
> > 	> the 100 meter objective over installed (DMD 
> challenged) 62.5u MMF
> > and the
> > 	> 300m objective over MMF.  In addition we can meet 300 
> meters over
> > existing
> > 	> 50 micron fiber and greater than 550 meters with the new high
> > bandwidth MMF.
> > 	>
> > 	> Finally experimental evidence has shown greater than 300 meter
> > performance
> > 	> over installed 62.5 micron fiber that is not DMD challenged.
> > 	>
> > 	> Bill Wiedemann
> > 	> Blaze
> > 	> 925-560-1610 x169
> > 	>
> > 	> At 02:11 PM 8/2/00 -0700, David W Dolfi wrote:
> > 	>
> > 	>
> > 	> >Everyone,
> > 	> >
> > 	> >
> > 	> >There seems to have been some confusion at the La Jolla
> > 	> >meeting over the necessity for an offset patch cord for
> > 	> >1300 nm WWDM.  Because of this, and additional comments
> > 	> >made on the reflector since the meeting, I am writing
> > 	> >this email to clarify the situation.
> > 	> >
> > 	> >Fact 1. An offset patch cord is NOT required for 1300 nm
> > 	> >WWDM in order to meet the current MMF objectives of 802.3ae.
> > 	> >That is to say, it is NOT required in order to achieve a 100
> > 	> >meter link length on the installed base (this includes both
> > 	> >62.5 and 50 um standard MMF, which both have a 500 MHz-km OFL
> > 	> >bandwidth length product at 1300 nm), NOR is it requred to
> > 	> >achieve a 300 meter link length on the new enhanced BW
> > 	> >MMF, which also has a 500 MHz-km OFL bandwidth at 1300 nm.
> > 	> >
> > 	> >Needless to say (but I will for the sake of completeness)
> > 	> >1300 nm WWDM also supports single mode fiber up to 10 km,
> > 	> >again without a patch cord.
> > 	> >
> > 	> >
> > 	> >Fact 2.  The ONLY time you need to use a patch cord with
> > 	> >1300 nm WWDM is if:
> > 	> >
> > 	> >1. You want to extend the link length of the MMF 
> installed base
> > 	> >to 300 meters
> > 	> >
> > 	> >AND IN ADDITION TO THIS
> > 	> >
> > 	> >2. The fiber in question is "DMD challenged".
> > 	> >
> > 	> >
> > 	> >Please note that if you are in this particular 
> situation, none
> > 	> >of the 850 nm based PMDs will satisfy your need, 
> patch cord or
> > 	> >not (but see Note below).  Your only alternative in this
> > situation,
> > 	> >with an 850 nm PMD, is to install new fiber, either 
> the enhanced
> > BW
> > 	> >multimode fiber or single mode fiber.  Therefore, 
> the notion that
> > 	> >the patch cord is some sort of "penalty" you pay for 
> using 1300
> > nm
> > 	> >WWDM is really the wrong way to think about it.  
> Rather than a
> > 	> >shortcoming, it is actually a benefit, since it gives you the
> > (rel-
> > 	> >atively speaking) low cost option of using a patch 
> cord in a sit-
> > 	> >uation where your only other alternative is to pull 
> new fiber.
> > 	> >
> > 	> >Note: The 850 nm 4 channel CWDM PMD will allow you a 
> 300 meter
> > link
> > 	> >length, without a patch cord, on the installed base of 50 um
> > fiber
> > 	> >ONLY.  However, this is a small benefit, since the 
> great majority
> > 	> >of the MMF installed base is 62.5 um fiber, on which 
> 850 nm CWDM
> > 	> >will only support a 100 meter link length (due to 
> the fact that
> > 	> >62.5 um fiber has an OFL bandwidth length product of only 160
> > 	> >MHz-km at 850 nm).
> > 	> >
> > 	> >
> > 	> >David Dolfi
> > 	> >Agilent Technologies
> > 	>
> > 	>
> >
>