|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Fair observations, Ed, and I am not the right person to answer the first bullet point – it might be a valuable contribution from Funada-san if there is enough time to examine it before the F2F meeting.
I just noticed that a slight reshuffling of wavelengths could minimize 25G channel challenges and posh them towards the system we know will be able to absorb penalties easier (I am not saying it is cost zero and trivial, just simpler than for 25G)
I agree that separate DBA domains for 10G and 25G upstream is desirable. In pure 50G greenfield we already have a mechanism—just use US0-A and US0-B (harstead_3ca_1_0917). Marek’s proposal is to extend this capability to the 10G PON brownfield co-existence scenario.
The disadvantages that I see:
That might James' opinion. I do not share it. We have enough spectrum to optionally allow WDM coexistence between 25G and 10G systems.
At the end of the day, I personally do not care about new 10G upstream, but only about making both 25G channels equally challenging and limit their dispersion penalty. I do know though that the optional ability to do 10G and 1G upstream separation in today's system is a saving grace in many deployments where these systems are overlapped on the same fiber strand. I do not see any advance of doing the overlap if we can have some separation between these systems
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 2:08 PM, John Johnson <john.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: