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

Re: [802.3_25GSMF] Parameter changes for MPI penalty

Hi Kohichi,
I agree with what you say.

Thinking about it, we have 2 columns for 25GBASE-ER:  the 30km column that has 3 dB of unallocated margin, and the 40km column that has 0 dB margin but is an “engineered link”.

Would you support the following:

1.       Add a note to the 3 dB margin in the 30km column that says the margin is to include allowance for an MPI penalty of up to 0.7 dB.

2.       Add a note to the 18 dB channel insertion loss in the 40 km column that says the 18 dB includes an allowance of up to 0.7 dB for MPI penalty.

I think that we need a comment that will not draw opposition in the recirculation ballot.   I would like to know whether the above will be supported or opposed.

David Lewis

From: 田村公一 Kohichi Tamura [mailto:Kohichi.Tamura@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:46 AM
To: STDS-802-3-25GSMF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_25GSMF] Parameter changes for MPI penalty

Hi David,
For 25GBASE-ER, my feeling is that we’ve already put the sensitivity as low as it ought to be for APD receivers. The transmitter OMA is also on the high side. So, to budget for MPI, I’d prefer to trade off a small amount of channel loss, leaving the powers as they are. One would expect use cases requiring the full loss budget to be rare, so it doesn’t seem necessary to burden the transmitter or receiver specifications further, unless justification is provided from channel data.

From: David Lewis [mailto:David.Lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 8:14 PM
To: STDS-802-3-25GSMF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-25GSMF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_25GSMF] Parameter changes for MPI penalty

That’s my initial proposal.  However if enough people object to the 0.7 dB reduction in sensitivity & SRS, we’ll need to introduce a loss table similar to the one in 100GBASE-DR.

During the ad hoc call there was opposition to the idea of giving users a tradeoff table for insertion loss for the 10km application.  The point was that some users would want to operate over existing cable plant currently operating at 10 Gb/s.  If we were to accept what I proposed, then those users would still need to check on how many connectors and the RL of each one, before knowing they could use it for 25 Gb/s.  At least they would not need to measure channel loss before knowing they could re-use a 10 Gb/s cable.

David Lewis

From: Dudek, Mike [mailto:Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 3:14 AM
To: David Lewis <David.Lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:David.Lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>; STDS-802-3-25GSMF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-25GSMF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Parameter changes for MPI penalty

Is your proposal to not make any allowed trade offs between number of connectors and link loss?   If so I think the numbers in the table on slide 6 would be replaced by ticks.   I do wonder with such a large difference between TDP and the allowance for penalties whether we should give people a clue what that is for.   Maybe split the row into two.   One that says “Allocation for TDP” (value of 2.7dB) and the other says “Allocation for other penalties including Multi Path Interference” (value of 0.7dB).

From: David Lewis [mailto:David.Lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 5:17 PM
To: STDS-802-3-25GSMF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-25GSMF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [802.3_25GSMF] Parameter changes for MPI penalty


At the ad hoc on Wednesday I took an action to provide the changes that would be needed in the optical link parameter tables for an MPI penalty of 0.7 dB.  See the attached presentation for what I think is needed.

The approach is to tighten Rx sensitivity and SRS by 0.7 dB for both the -LR and -ER variants.  In addition this proposal tightens the Transmitter reflectance from a maximum of -12 dB to a maximum of -26 dB.

Please use the reflector for discussion of this topic.  Our next ad hoc is on Wed June 28th and will be the only one between now and when the sponsor recirculation ballot ends.

David Lewis
P802.3cc Task Force Chair