[EFM] RE: [EFM-P2P] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
- To: "'Mike Dudek'" <mdudek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Hans Mickelsson (ERA)" <Hans.Mickelsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [EFM] RE: [EFM-P2P] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
- From: "Eichenbaum, Bernard R (Bernard)** NL **" <eichenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:54:04 -0500
- Cc: "'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'" <Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, FEffenberger@QuantumBridge.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, PengL@corning.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Tonyshouse@aol.com, email@example.com, Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
The quoted temperature dependencies are too conservative by a factor of ten.
For example, uncooled DFBs drift on the order of 0.1 nm / degree C or K, and
shave that down to 0.09 if more precision is needed. This is true across the
single mode fiber spectrum, O-band to L-band.
OFS Optical Fiber Division
From: Mike Dudek [mailto:mdudek@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 1:35 PM
To: Hans Mickelsson (ERA)
Cc: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'; email@example.com;
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; doravv@xxxxxxxxxx; FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
sasaki144@xxxxxxx; schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx;
Subject: Re: [EFM-P2P] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
VCSEL change in wavelength as a function of temperature is similar/slightly
better than the quoted number for the DFB.
"Hans Mickelsson (ERA)" wrote:
> Good work, see below for some comments.
> "Fewest variations of PMD to track in field". I agree that it will be less
PMDs to track however if this is a real problem is not clear. Assume that
you decide to use a certain lamda for downstream then it it ijust to follow
this approach in all your switches and the problem will be non-existing.
> Can you explain "Use of inexpensive TOSA a bit further"?
> "Temperature performance". An un-cooled DFB (0.01 nm/K) is less temp
dependent than a FP (0.03 nm/K). Can anyone give some figures for a VCSEL?
> "Leverage of 1310 nm....", True, but you raise an interesting question
here. The use of parallel optics will be very difficult with any single
> Some othe options to consider are;
> The need for angled polished connectors for controlling refelctions in the
network. Not necessary for dual but probably necessary for single.
> Will the be any difference between the two options in an up-grade scenario
to higher bit-rates?
> Brgds//HANS MICKELSSON
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: den 14 februari 2002 17:25
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
> > bob.barret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > doravv@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hans.mickelsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > jradcliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx; PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sasaki144@xxxxxxx;
> > schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
> > Hello All,
> > First off I apologise for a blanket bomb approach with
> > sending out this e-mail but
> > I have my reasons, as will become clear below.
> > As most of you will know, I am currently co-ordinating the development
> > of a single fibre, single wavelength PMD proposal for P2P links.
> > During a recent discussion of this work, it became clear that
> > a number of people
> > were unaware of what was happening or still unclear of some
> > of the technical issues involved. Several questions arose
> > which had already been answered in the course of dedicated
> > telephone conferences and
> > some new issues were also raised.
> > Of course this discussion is very good for the quality of the
> > standard. However,
> > in the interest of progress and completion of a baseline
> > proposal for March, it
> > is essential that people allay any concerns they may have in
> > the interim and go
> > into the meeting feeling ready to make an informed decision.
> > I would therefore ask people who have an opinion (or concern)
> > in this direction
> > to speak up, raise the issues and avoid further surprises in St Louis.
> > Arising from the aforementioned discussions was the idea that
> > a 2 wavelength
> > PMD may be an alternative approach. In order to facilitate
> > comparison of the
> > two ideas, a matrix was proposed which I have included here
> > in a somewhat modified
> > form. I divided the table into Today and Future, the former
> > represent current laser sources (FP and DFB)
> > and the later assuming the use of VCSELs, be that at 1310,
> > 1490 or 1550 nm. I dislike the 1-10
> > approach of comparing as this is too subjective, rather a
> > binary 0 or 1 representing the better solution
> > for a particular criteria. In some cases there are no
> > differences and both receive 0. The 'points'
> > are added and a comparison may be made. NOTE, this will not
> > be the basis of the decision, rather an aid
> > to objective comparison. I have included comments behind each
> > issue cells detailing my evaluation.
> > So, speak up, play with the table, add issues if necessary,
> > send it back to me,
> > get on the telephone conferences.
> > Best regards and looking forward to further progress.
> > Tom and the P2P group
> > <<Comparison matrix for 1 and 2 wavelength PMDs.xls>>