RE: [EFM] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
- To: Sergiu Rotenstein <SRotenstein@nbase.com>, Jerry Radcliffe <JRadcliffe@hatterasnetworks.com>, "'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'" <Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, FEffenberger@QuantumBridge.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, PengL@corning.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Tonyshouse@aol.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
- From: Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 19:59:20 -0600
- Cc: Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx, "'Sergiu Rotenstein (E-mail)'" <sergiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-Reply-To: <30C8EC18FA0B92458918317E864AABCE985F19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: email@example.com
If the legacy analog TV was not an issue, wouldn't ~1550nm range be a
better wavelength range for PON as well?
At 03:45 PM 2/15/2002 -0800, Sergiu Rotenstein wrote:
>The Video overlay at 1550 nm is a very important requirement in any PMD that
>the group will define. That's why the PON migrated to 1310/1490.
>A 1310 bidirectional solution provides the easiest integration with the 1550
>It is today and in the future the most affordable solution.
>Keep in mind that the major drawback of the 1310 nm bidirectional solution -
>the reflection problem - is significant in old infrastructures that is not
>build based on specific
>requirements of single wavelength bidirectional. In the vast majority of the
>FTTH distribution network, spanning from the PoP to the subscribers will be
>new. In most
>of the cases the reflection problem may be solved by having at each edge a
>section/jumper with SC/APC connectors on both sides. The rest of the
>infrastructure may be
>In addition I hope that the same approach (1310 nm bidirectional) will be
>From: Jerry Radcliffe [mailto:JRadcliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 9:17 AM
>To: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'; firstname.lastname@example.org;
>david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; doravv@xxxxxxxxxx; FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>hans.mickelsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jerry Radcliffe; jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx;
>mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>sasaki144@xxxxxxx; schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx;
>Subject: [EFM] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
>There is one additional consideration which you did not include in your
>matrix. This has to do with compatibility with other transport.
>Specifically, 1500nm to 1550nm overlays.
>There will be applications in the future where a service provider will
>desire to add other services, such as video, onto the same fiber. With a
>1300nm system this will be relatively painless to do. The 1300nm and 1550nm
>windows may be easily separated with widely available coarse WDM filters.
>On the other hand, a system using 1310nm and 1490nm to 1550nm in the other
>direction is more complicated. The separation of the wavelengths will
>require a more sophisticated filter and tighter wavelength control on the
>longer wavelength laser. If this PMD also applies to 100M then this will be
>the difference between an FP and a DFB laser.
>In this area I would give the single wavelength option a 1.
>From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:25 AM
>To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
>bob.barret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; doravv@xxxxxxxxxx;
>mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx; PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
>First off I apologise for a blanket bomb approach with sending out this
>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
>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
>some new issues were also raised.
>Of course this discussion is very good for the quality of the standard.
>in the interest of progress and completion of a baseline proposal for March,
>is essential that people allay any concerns they may have in the interim and
>into the meeting feeling ready to make an informed decision.
>I would therefore ask people who have an opinion (or concern) in this
>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
>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
>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>>
>This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
>contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure
>or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please
>contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the message.
>information contained in this electronic mail is privileged and
>confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
>above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
>communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in
>error, please immediately notify Disclaimer@xxxxxxxxxx Thank you.