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

RE: [EFM] PON timing parameters - a conservative's view

(Another Email copied from the archive - sorry.) 

Since Vipul hadn't answered, I thought I'd like to provide some input. 

While your proposition would provide the ultimate in compatibility, it sadly
is out of the question, for the simple reason of power.  The P2P optics have
a very small fiber power budget, while the P2MP optics must deal with the
significant splitter loss in addition to the fiber.  A 1:16 splitter has a
loss of 14 dB.  This means we need 20x more power, which is far too much of
a difference to bridge over.   
Frank Effenberger. 

To: <>, <> 
Subject: RE: [EFM] PON timing parameters - a conservative's view 
From: "Ariel Maislos" <ariel.maislos@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:08:52 -0800 
Cc: "Kent McCammon" <kmccammon@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Jonathan Thatcher'"
<Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Frank Effenberger'"
Importance: Normal 
Organization: Passave Inc. 
Reply-To: <ariel.maislos@xxxxxxxxxxx> 



What is the commonality between the single-fiber PON-ONU PMD and the
single-fiber P2P-ONU PMD?
Would loose timing parameters for the PON-ONU PMD make the two PMDs
(almost) identical?
My understanding is that once a Bi-Directional module is inserted in the
PMD (the significant effort) almost no difference exist between the two
PMDs if timing parameters are loose?

Would it not make a lot of sense to seek economies of scale with P2P
As there are always question marks around PON, yet no doubt as to the
success of P2P Ethernet, would it not make more sense to reach for cost
savings through Ethernet compatibility?