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

Re: [HSSG] The List

I feel EDC in general term could mean alot of things to alot of people, and its power consumption could range from 0 (passive EQ) to over 5-6W and it could be implemented on the Rx side or Tx side. Not sure what kind of EDC you meant, which simply did nothing but degrade your HPC apps.  
As to the xtalk, what I meant was the electrical ones into the EDC input because of multi-10G PMD lanes which may originate from electrical or optical sources.  
The extra EDC margin of 2-3dB I talked about comes from the efficient bandwidth equalization/optimization mainly to the RX frond-end in front of the decision circuit as you can see from a couple of ofc papers we posted. Typically because of TOSA or ROSA flex circuits, bonding wires, PCB trace etc associated with large area 10G MMF detectors, the resultant RX frond-end bandwidth could be as low as 3-4GHz away from the ideal BW of 7-8GHz, such bw reduction degrades the RX sensitivity dramatically.   
From the calculated curve of varying the Rx frond end BW on the Q-function, the Q-factor roll of quickly after 6GHz to 3GHz without EDC. When EDC is used to optimized  the bandwidth, the Q-curve could be very flat down to 2.5GHz. We also test some commercial ROSAs, I see sometimes this margin could be well over 2-3dB.     
-----Original Message-----
From: Petar Pepeljugoski [mailto:petarp@US.IBM.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [HSSG] The List


I agree with your assessment. If nothing else, the EDC would add to the power consumption of the module, making things worse for some applications, like HPC.

Frank, is the crosstalk you are talking about of electrical or optical nature, and where does it occur?

Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218 (mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134 (shipping)
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

phone: (914)-945-3761
fax:        (914)-945-4134

Chris Cole <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM>

07/02/2007 02:00 PM
Please respond to
Chris Cole <chris.cole@FINISAR.COM>

Re: [HSSG] The List


I would be very interested to see your calculations showing how one gets 2-3dB of extra margin through the use of an EDC for 10G NRZ optical signal sent over 100m of OM3 MMF (typical BW at 850nm of 2000MHz/km.)

With respect to EDC for use with "low-cost" optics, I characterized that as speculative, not enabling.


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Chang []
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:52 AM
To: Chris Cole;
Subject: RE: [HSSG] The List


I personally agree EDC maynot help reduce or mitigate cross-talk, instead will provide extra (2-3dB) margin/yield due to e.g. band limiting effects or dispersion effects if any, existing in OE and EO conversions or the fiber medium. While this extra margin can be used to compensate for any penalty induced by xtalk. Like you said, also this could enable the use of low-cost optics.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Cole []
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [HSSG] The List


It is not clear what problems are solved by your proposal to define the 40G and 100G MMF optical specifications around linear interfaces and host EDC.

Fist, SFP+ 10GE-SR optics are a solved problem today, and the SFP+ 10GE-SR specification, while not optimum, is complete and manufacturable. The original 300m meter 802.3 10GE-SR specification has a number of issues which affect yield and therefore delayed the availability of low cost 10GE. However, as has been seen from numerous emails on this reflector, multiple manufacturers have resolved these issues.

On the other hand, the SFP+ 10GE-LRM linear specification still has a number of difficult issues to resolve. So you are proposing to consider as a starting point a spec which is still under discussion and therefore not done, instead of a specification which is complete and verified to work.

The reason for going to a lower distance for 40G and 100G is to provide additional margin/yield. Further, 300m multi-ribbon applications are highly unlikely, so it makes little sense to have the 40G or 100G specifications driven by an insignificant fraction of the applications. We may re-visit whether 100m is the right distance (150m has been mentioned as an alternative,) but 300m would be of little value as was commented on by multiple-end users during the HSSG discussion of the MMF objective.

Second, I am at loss as to how an EDC solves the additional penalty issue of cross-talk in a multi-lane application. Cross-talk problems are solved through echo-cancellers, not EDCs. So if we wanted to reduce cross-talk effects through signal processing techniques, a solution resembling 1000BASE-T or 10GBASE-T would be required. 10GBASE-T power numbers in the many watts have been reported on this reflector. For 40G, we would expect linear scaling in power, and quadratic scaling for full-cross ten-lane echo-cancellation. We will be well served to view this as a solution of last resort, not as a starting point.

Third, I do not see the motivation to have an EDC for an objective which explicitly states OM3 as the fiber. OM3 does not have dispersion problems over a distance of 100m or 150m. LRM EDC was developed for legacy OM1 fiber, already deployed within buildings, for example between floors. I have heard no application identified in any HSSG presentation for 40G or 100G which would use ribbon-fiber that had dispersion problems like OM1. So we would burden 40G or 100G hosts with an EDC per channel, so that we can use optics that do not meet SR specs on the speculatively assumption that they are lower cost.

Fourth, cross-talk for connectors and PCB traces has been simulated and quantified (see for example page 12 of cole_01_1106.pdf.) There is no indication that the cross-talk magnitude is anywhere near requiring the drastic measures of an EDC/Echo Canceller. A careful re-allocation of the SFI (SFP+ interface) jitter budget between the host and optics will permit tolerance of these levels of cross-talk.

Missing is the measurement data for cross-talk in multi-lane 10G I/O CMOS ASICs. Until we have solid data for this, we will not be able to complete the specification of MMF PMDs that do not require CDRs.

I would encourage all IC vendors participating in the HSSG, who have developed silicon that implements 10G I/O, to bring in multi-lane 10G I/O cross-talk data so that we can base the 40G and 100G specifications on measurement results.



"Ali Ghiasi" <>
06/27/2007 12:33 PM
To: "Jack Jewell" <Jack.Jewell@PICOLIGHT.COM>, "Paul Kolesar" <>
Subject: Re: [HSSG] The List

Jack and Paul

The question is not whether SFP+ can achieve 300 m SR reach similar to XFP, but how do we get to 10G SFP+
at 2.5x the cost of 1G classic SFP for DCE (Data Center Ethernet) with max reach of 100 m.

If we can get to 10G SFP+ at 2.5x the cost of 1G at 300 m then the 10G PAR objective is complete, but how long
do we wait the need is know.  But I do know the combination of lower cost optics with EDC can deliver
the 2.5x cost objective for DCE applications near term.  To get to these cost the transmitter very likely
will not be fully SR compliant and in that case it does not matter if the reach is 100 or 300 m.

The current assumption in the HSSG is that you can achieve SFP+ limiting performance with 4 or 10 channels without the
use of CDR in the module, with more crosstalk, less optimum layout, SerDes having more jitter and less tolerance compare
to small port count PHYs, optics ???  You will get small benefit from reducing fiber reach to 100m but not enough to close the
link budget.  As Dan mentioned EDC is becoming a standard feature on PHYs and we definitely need to leverage it for 40G/100G.  
Use of linear interface is an approach that can close the link budget without the use of CDR in the module, relax the optics
specifications, and the same interface can support passive copper Twin-ax up to 10m.