| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear Shane and all, This is Tsutomu TATSUTA. Thank you for the great work. I reconsider the survey and I had some comments and questions. Question 1.2 What is a purpose of this question? I think only a purpose of this question is to decide we consider coexistence of the current PON and 10G-EPON. If the number of the current PON customer is big, do we consider the coexistence? If my assumption is right, I think questions 2.1 and 2.2 are enough to decide it. Question 1.6 I think we need to specify a word of "optical design margin". If it means the difference between a real loss budget and an official loss budget, I think we cannot use the margin as 10G-EPON optical margin because it is a margin for service providers' network design. If the optical margin is different meaning, please specify it. Question 1.7-b I think we can ask it directly. I was modified the question as attached. Question 1.8 What is a purpose of this question? If it is used to decide the distance of 10G-EPON, I think another question in section 2 is better. Please check the question 2.4 I revised. Questions 2.1 and 2.2 What is a purpose of this question? Questions 2.4 and 2.5 As for the split ratio I think a split ratio is not so important and a loss budget is very important. A split ratio is one of the aspects of a loss budget. For example; when two operators want 29dB loss budget, it is possible that one operator's network is 1×16 split and many connectors and another operator's network is 1×32 split and few connectors. As for the fiber distance A fiber distance is necessary to decide the effect of the dispersion penalty. My conclusion is we need to ask operators their requirement of the loss budget and the distance. I combined question 2.4 and 2.5 and modified it as question 2.4 as attached. Please forgive me my skill less for Microsoft Word. The question number became odd after question 2.4 and I was not able to fix it. Question 2.8-b Same as question 1.7-b. Sincerely yours, Tsutomu TATSUTA At 00:58 06/10/31 -0500, Shane Eleniak wrote: >All, >Please find an updated version of the questionnaire based on this >afternoon's call. Would appreciate if everyone on the call reviewed it and >sent me any feedback. > >Additionally, please send me directly the service provider's you can >contact. > >Regards, >Shane > > > > >
CWorkingIEEEProviderSurveyV5-Tatsuta.doc