[8023-10GEPON] ODP: [8023-10GEPON] FW: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher split ratio - Conference Call Minutes
Dear all,
I believe Glen may be right. Though I will provide more details during the meeting in Dallas, I may say right now that it seems unlikely that we will exceed the IEC 60825-1 power levels, unless optical amplification is used. The non-linear effects become visible somewhere below the quoted power levels from IEC 60825-1 so I think that unless we decide to use optical amplifiers, we are still in the safe field.
Best wishes
Marek
________________________________
Od: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@TEKNOVUS.COM]
Wysłano: Wt 11/7/2006 9:59
Do: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Temat: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher split ratio - Conference Call Minutes
Dear Takahashi-san,
Does this mean that higher power levels allowed by IEC 60825 are not allowed
in Japan?
This is a question for all: should we limit ourselves to 60825-1 to make it
a more universally applicable spec, or should we follow the latest
amendments that allow higher power levels, even though it may put it above
the limit in some countries?
I am curious what norms and regulations exist in other countries. Please,
comment if you have this info.
IEEE 802.3ah has referred to 60825-1, even though at the time of 802.3ah
approval (2004), the 60825-2 already existed.
Note: It may turn out that the effects of channel non-linearities put much
more stringent limits on launch power, so the question of which safety
standard to follow may not be critical. Our high-split ratio ad hoc should
answer this question.
Glen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akira Takahashi [mailto:Takahashi.Akira@AJ.MITSUBISHIELECTRIC.CO.JP]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:09 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher
> split ratio - Conference Call Minutes
>
> Dear all,
>
> The class of laser is standardized in each country, it is standardized
> in JIS(Japanese Industrial Standards) JISC6803 in Japan, and IEC 60825-1
> is the base.
> In ad hoc on wavelength and co-existence, 1210nm and 1580nm are also
> discussed as the candidates. In Table 1 of IEC 60825-1, the output of
> the laser limited with Class 1 is as follows,
>
> 1210nm 15.6mW(+12dBm)
> 1310nm 15.6mW(+12dBm)
> 1420nm 10mW(+10dBm)
> 1490nm 10mW(+10dBm)
> 1550nm 10mW(+10dBm)
> 1580nm 10nm(+10dBm)
>
> Regards,
>
> Takahashi
>
> MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Anslow
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher
> split ratio - Conference Call Minutes
>
>
>
> Glen,
>
>
>
> You asked ? "Can we somehow translate the 60825 requirements into a
> maximum limit for launch power at ONU?"
>
>
>
> The answer is that to do this properly you have to apply all of the rules
> found in IEC 60825-1 and 60825-2 and the maximum power you get depends on
> wavelength. However, Table D.1 of IEC 60825-2 contains the limits for 11
> um mode field diameter single mode fibre for the following wavelengths:
>
>
>
> 1310 nm 15.6 mW (+12 dBm)
>
> 1420 nm 10 mW (+10 dBm)
>
> 1550 nm 10 mW (+10 dBm)
>
>
>
>
>
> "is it reasonable to anticipate that a customer sooner or later will
> decide to look directly into the ONU connector?"
>
> I think that the answer to that is definitely "Yes"
>
>
>
> "Is it reasonable that a customer will try to pry open a shutter door that
> a connector may have."
>
> I think that this is much more difficult to answer and may be affected by
> how difficult it is to do etc.
>
>
>
> "Is the ONU's mode of operation when it shuts down its laser when it sees
> no incoming signal a reasonable measure to classify higher-power optics as
> class 1?"
>
> I think that the correct terminology for equipment that operates at high
> power levels and automatically shuts down in the event of loss of
> continuity
> of the link is that it is Hazard level 1.
>
> The answer to whether an ONU is Hazard level 1 because of a shutdown
> mechanism depends on things like the time between the loss of continuity
> of the
> link and the power reduction (I think that this must be < 1 second for
> unrestricted locations) and the reliability of the shutdown mechanism
> (e.g.
> software based shutdown may not be reliable enough).
>
> This is a complex subject ? see IEC 60825-2 for details.
>
>
>
> IEC 60825-2 also contains information specific to PONs. For example
> clause D.4.6
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pete Anslow
>
>
>
> Nortel Networks UK Limited, London Rd, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
>
> External +44 1279 402540 Fax +44 1279 405670 ESN 742 2540
>
>
>
> Email: pja@nortel.com
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@teknovus.com]
> Sent: 01 November 2006 20:51
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher
> split ratio - Conference Call Minutes
>
>
>
> > Class 4 lasers are of high power . may have sufficient energy to
> ignite materials .
>
>
>
> That's what I need! Now we are talking business.
>
>
>
>
>
> Seriously, our RAP stated that our project won't "result in any health,
> safety, security, or environmental guidance that affects or applies to
> human
> health or safety". For 1G EPON, clause 60 explicitly limits us to class I
> optics and it explicitly refers to IEC 60825:
>
>
>
> 60.8.2 Laser safety
>
> 1000BASE-PX10 and 1000BASE-PX20 optical transceivers shall conform to
> Class 1 laser requirements as
>
> defined in IEC 60825-1, under any condition of operation. This includes
> single fault conditions whether
>
> coupled into a fiber or out of an open bore. Conformance to additional
> laser safety standards may be
>
> required for operation within specific geographic regions.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am not very clear how to interpret the Class I rules below:
>
>
>
> A class 1 laser is safe for use under all reasonably-anticipated
> conditions of use; in other words, it is not expected that the maximum
> permissible
> exposure (MPE) can be exceeded. This class may include lasers of a higher
> class whose beams are confined within a suitable enclosure so that access
> to
> laser radiation is physically prevented.
>
>
>
> What are all reasonably-anticipated conditions and what is expected MPE?
> For example, is it reasonable to anticipate that a customer sooner or
> later
> will decide to look directly into the ONU connector? Is it reasonable
> that a customer will try to pry open a shutter door that a connector may
> have.
>
>
>
> Is the ONU's mode of operation when it shuts down its laser when it sees
> no incoming signal a reasonable measure to classify higher-power optics as
> class 1? My point is that this protection (a useful side-effect of MPCP,
> really) is done at a protocol level, way above PMD.
>
>
>
> Can we somehow translate the 60825 requirements into a maximum limit for
> launch power at ONU?
>
>
>
> Glen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom,
>
> Good data. I am not sure why you were not able to post. I am forwarding
> this to the reflector (phone and e-mail from you signature were removed to
> curb spam).
> Glen
>
>
> Glen, I tried posting to the listserv but I guess I've only got Lurking
> permissions. I have some awareness of laser safety as our test products
> use
> Lasers up to 20 mw or so:
> As one might expect Laser Safety is not a simple issue. Requirements are
> generally concerned about optical power density (mw/cm^2). I would guess
> that an EDFA output at +20 dB (100 mW) could fall under class IIIB.
> Revised system
> In 2002 the system of Laser Classes was revised as part of a revision of
> the international laser safety standard, IEC 60825. The revision was based
> on
> the greater knowledge of lasers that had accumulated since the original
> classification system was devised, and was intended to permit certain
> types of
> lasers to be recognized as having a lower hazard than was implied by their
> placement in the original classification system. The revised system is
> expected to be adopted for use in the US in the next revision of the ANSI
> Laser Safety Standard (ANSI Z136). The FDA, which regulates lasers offered
> in commerce in the United States, does not object to its use on imported
> laser products' labels and markings.
>
> class I
>
> A class 1 laser is safe for use under all reasonably-anticipated
> conditions of use; in other words, it is not expected that the maximum
> permissible
> exposure (MPE) can be exceeded. This class may include lasers of a higher
> class whose beams are confined within a suitable enclosure so that access
> to
> laser radiation is physically prevented.
>
> class IM
>
> Class 1M lasers produce large-diameter beams, or beams that are divergent.
> The MPE for a Class 1M laser cannot normally be exceeded unless focusing
> or
> imaging optics are used to narrow down the beam. If the beam is refocused,
> the hazard of Class 1M lasers may be increased and the product class may
> be
> changed.
>
> class II
>
> A class 2 laser emits in the visible region. It is presumed that the human
> blink reflex will be sufficient to prevent damaging exposure, although
> prolonged viewing may be dangerous.
>
> class IIM
>
> A class IIM laser emits in the visible region in the form of a large
> diameter or divergent beam. It is presumed that the human blink reflex
> will be
> sufficient to prevent damaging exposure, but if the beam is focused down,
> damaging levels of radiation may be reached and may lead to a
> reclassification of the laser.
>
> class IIIR
>
> A class 3R laser is a continuous wave laser which may produce up to five
> times the emission limit for Class 1 or class 2 lasers. Although the MPE
> can
> be exceeded, the risk of injury is low. The laser can produce no more than
> 5 mW in the visible region.
>
> class IIIB
>
> A class 3B laser produces light of an intensity such that the MPE for eye
> exposure may be exceeded and direct viewing of the beam is potentially
> serious. Diffuse radiation (i.e., that which is scattered from a diffusing
> surface) should not be hazardous. CW emission from such lasers at
> wavelengths above 315 nm must not exceed 0.5 watts.
>
> class IV
>
> Class 4 lasers are of high power (typically more than 500 mW if cw, or 10
> J/cm2 if pulsed). These are hazardous to view at all times, may cause
> devastating and permanent eye damage, may have sufficient energy to ignite
> materials, and may cause significant skin damage. Exposure of the eye or
> skin to both the direct laser beam and to scattered beams, even those
> produced by reflection from diffusing surfaces, must be avoided at all
> times. In
> addition, they may pose a fire risk and may generate hazardous fumes.
>
> (From The Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory Oxford
> University)[7]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Durston
>
> Product Development Manager
>
> Greenlee / Textron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@TEKNOVUS.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:21 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher split ratio -
> Conference Call Minutes
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> What about upstream launch power? I am not sure, but I'd guess the safety
> rules would be different for CO and for a household.
>
>
>
> Are there any volunteers to make a short overview presentation on the
> topic?
>
>
>
> Glen
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> From: David Piehler [mailto:dpiehler@ALPHION.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:55 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher split ratio -
> Conference Call Minutes
>
>
>
> I don't know the exact safety issues involved, but I do know that carriers
> deploying the video overlay do launch up to +20 dBm at 1550 nm into the
> OSP fiber. Also in the CATV world, this type of launch power is not
> uncommon.
>
>
>
> David Piehler
>
> Alphion
>
> mobile: +1 732 692 4581
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@teknovus.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:49 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher split ratio -
> Conference Call Minutes
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> This is a great point. Could you provide some more info on class 1 safety?
> In general, what regulations apply to CPE side and to CO side? It would
> be great to have a presentation in November covering this topic. It
> definitely should be part of the set of constraints that the high-split ad
> hoc
> considers.
>
>
>
> Glen
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> From: Mike Dudek [mailto:mike.dudek@PICOLIGHT.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:35 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher split ratio -
> Conference Call Minutes
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> One question related to the higher split ratio that I haven't seen
> discussed is related to laser eye safety. Is this a problem for EPON?
> For other
> ethernet standards we've normally required class 1 eye safety. I think
> powers significantly higher than this are being considered here.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Dudek
> Director Transceiver Engineering
> Picolight Inc
> 1480 Arthur Avenue
> Louisville
> CO 80027
> Tel 303 530 3189 x7533.
> mike.dudek@picolight.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> From: Hajduczenia, Marek [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@SIEMENS.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:06 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [8023-10GEPON] 10GEPON ad hoc on higher split ratio - Conference
> Call Minutes
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> below please find the conference call minutes, taken down by Glen (thank
> You for the job well done)
>
>
>
> please let me know if You find any irregularities in the minutes or if You
> have any comments on those.
>
>
>
> **************************************************************************
> *****
>
>
>
> Attendees:
>
> Haim Ben-Amram
>
> Russell Davey
>
> Glen Kramer
>
> Marek Hajduczenia
>
> Frank Chang
>
> Silvia Pato
>
> David Piehler
>
> Harold Kamisugi
>
> Bin Yeong Yoon
>
> Dong Soo Lee
>
> Wael Diab
>
>
>
> Task 1: estimation of 1x64 and 1x128 port splitter power loss values
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Discussed Marek's presentation. Few questions about derivation of splitter
> loss. No objections. Task 1 is considered completed.
>
>
>
> Task 2: non-linear effects in fiber channel
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Silvia gave brief overview of the paper on non-liner effects in 10GEPON.
> SBS seems like major impairment. Mentioned dithering technique for laser
> sources.
>
> Questions that need more research:
>
> 1) Can video-overlay even be supported on 1x128 PON? What power budget
> will be required?
>
> 2) Can we use high-power source for data wavelength and use video-overlay?
> Effects of Raman crosstalk due to high-power source.
>
> AR: Silvia will finish sub-task 2.2 "estimate the maximum launch power
> into fiber which can be achieved without introducing non-linear effects"
> by
> November 6th.
>
>
>
> Task 3: TX/RX technology
>
> ----------------------
>
> Bin Yeong Yoon and dong Soo Lee are in the process of compiling a survey
> of receivers, transmitters, and amplifiers available on the market today.
>
> AR: Bin Yeong Yoon is to finish the first draft later this week. Then
> narrow down the viable configurations based on input from task 2.
>
>
>
> Task 4: power margins in the EPON systems
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> It seemed to be difficult to get this data from carriers. It was decided
> that for now we will reverse-calculate this data from insertion loss taken
> in
> 802.3ah. We later may update it with more accurate numbers based on
> carriers' responses to a wavelength/power survey.
>
> AR: Marek is to calculate allocation for penalties and outside plant aging
> and repair margins later this week.
>
> An additional conference call may be scheduled to discuss final drafts of
> the presentations.
>
>
>
> **************************************************************************
> *****
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
> (PhD Student - COM RD1)
> SIEMENS Networks S.A. - IC
> Rua Irmaos Siemens, 1
> Ed. 1, Piso 1
> Alfragide
> 2720-093 Amadora
> Portugal
> * Marek.Hajduczenia@siemens.com
> http://marekhaj.easyisp.pl/index.php
> (+351.21.416.7472 4+351.21.424.2082
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
> and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee.
> Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on
> the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
> constitute a violation of law. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to
> this e-mail, and delete the message from your system. If you
> have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender
> immediately.