Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting

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

Hi Maurice,

The problem with class C was not the data rate; it was the aggressive power budget. My main concern with relying on yet-to-be-achieved breakthroughs is that it will result in a “dead standard” if the expected breakthroughs don’t come true.

Ultimately, it is up to the group to decide what is technically and economically feasible and what is too far fetched. In any case, the best way forward would be to make a specific proposal and rally support around it.

Thanks,

Glen

From: Maurice Reintjes [mailto:maurice.reintjes@MINDSPEED.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:16 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting

Glen: At the time the EFM spec was being written, only APD-based TIAs could meet the sensitivity numbers, and they had trouble
meeting the overload figure. It was only after Mindspeed introduced a high-sensitivity 1G TIA, that PIN-based receivers which could meet
the sensitivity and overload specifications became widely available. This was a serendipitous coincidence with the release of the standard.

What I am suggesting here is that we take advantage of parts/processes in development in parallel with the standard.
I know that there are some very sharp people out there, and if you give them a challenge, coupled with a chance to make
money, things will happen if there is a real need.

I think that the problem with GPON Class C is more the lack of understanding for the need to have this kind of BW to the average home,
not the spec. Few subscribers need OC-48 both upstream and downstream.

My guess is that the infrastructure people will start out by selecting the version of the standard that has datarates of 1G upstream to the
CO and 10G downstream to the subscriber, simply because of the asymmetrical nature of bandwidth demands to the average
subscriber for things such as IPTV, and the higher cost of other implementations.

Hence, the first deployments will be that way, as they avoid the two difficult technical challenges:
1) The 10G or 1G/10G dual data rate OLT receiver.
2) The 10G Burst mode ONU laser driver.

As the need for more upstream BW develops, I suspect that other implementations codified in the standard will be adopted.

Best Regards

Maurice Reintjes
MindspeedTM
Hillsboro, Oregon,USA
Office Phone (503)-914-5370
Mobile (503)-701-0797

Glen Kramer <glen.kramer@teknovus.com>

01/30/2007 07:45 PM

Please respond to
glen.kramer@teknovus.com

To
cc
Subject	Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting

Frank, Maurice,

1G EPON was a runaway hit because it defined something that was ready for immediate deployment, even though more advanced technologies were available at the time. If you go too aggressive or too forward-looking, you always risk of specifying something that won’t become available for years and that will become irrelevant when it finally appears. You don’t need to look far for an example. Consider GPON’s class C optics– today, 3 years after the standard’s approval there are still no components available. The point is, our spec should not preclude product’s ability to benefit from future technology improvements, but it should not make these potential improvements mandatory in order to achieve the standards-compliance status.

This is just my general attitude toward PMD spec. Keep in mind that everyone has a different scale for measures of spec’s “aggressiveness” and “forward-lookingness”. You still need to make a specific proposal for what you consider the most reasonable PMD spec – it could be that the group would agree with it, making this entire discussion pointless.

Regards,
Glen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail expresses my views as an individual contributor to
the task force, not as task force chair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frank Chang [mailto:ychang@VITESSE.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 6:33 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting

Hi Marek;

I share similar comment to Maurice, I think we need to address this in some forward-looking way, at least for some of the link budgets like 29dB. This doesnot mean we are so aggressive to propose sth impossible even today. Some optics may look among best-in-class today and we should allow the technology to grow, so will eventually become commonplace in 3-4 yrs later. And we have already seen ethernet did great job to drag both simple and cost-effective implementation in the past.

_Frank

"Hajduczenia, Marek" <marek.hajduczenia@siemens.com>

01/30/2007 04:26 PM

To	<maurice.reintjes@MINDSPEED.COM>, <STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org>
cc
Subject	ODP: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting

Maurice,
what You're suggesting is thus that we ought to go the same way i.e. set the targets aggresively and hope for teh best that the manufacturers can come up with the compliant equipment? 10G is not 1G and we heard some opinions about the component progress and development, which may result in significant improvement in the next 2-3 years but still, nobody can say that for sure right ?
Best wishes
Marek

________________________________

Od: Maurice Reintjes [mailto:maurice.reintjes@MINDSPEED.COM]
Wysłano: Wt 1/30/2007 10:29
Do: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Temat: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting

Glen: The procedure you outline below is close to how Clause 60 was developed.

What helped EFM in terms of Link budget was choosing an aggressive target
(one which was just barely ahead of the present state of the art for low-cost components)
for TX power and RX sensitivity, and having the suppliers stretch to meet it.
By the time the standard was ratified suppliers were ready.

Best Regards

Maurice Reintjes
MindspeedTM
Hillsboro, Oregon,USA
Office Phone (503)-914-5370
Mobile (503)-701-0797

Glen Kramer <glen.kramer@teknovus.com>

01/30/2007 01:42 PM
Please respond to
glen.kramer@teknovus.com

To
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
cc
Subject
Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting

Robert,

This is a good plan for the call. To clarify item (b) below, as an outcome
of this ad hoc I would like to see two tables listing receive and transmit
characteristics for each PMD. As an example, I attached corresponding tables
from clause 60 (1000BASE-PX20).

I am thinking of the following iterative process:

1) Pick Rx and Tx technologies that may get you the required budget
2) Select a specific set of parameters (as in the attached tables) that
satisfy the required budget and which the chosen technologies can achieve.
3) Verify the selected combination of parameters using the Link Model
spreadsheet.
4) If verification fails, return to step 1) or 2).

Not all the parameters in the attached tables are used in the spreadsheet,
so we probably don't need to sweat right now on those parameters that do not
directly affect power budget (like laser on/off, settling time, or jitter
characteristics).

Those, who have been through the EFM PMD's pains, please comment on what
worked and what didn't in selecting the 1G EPON PMDs.

Thanks,
Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lingle, Jr, Robert (Robert) [mailto:rlingle@OFSOPTICS.COM]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:11 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting
>
> As a reminder, there will be two meetings with essentially the same
> agenda,
> one Tuesday evening at 7PM EST and the other at 9AM EST Wednesday morning
> (see below).
>
> I am revising the agenda for the first meeting, based on feedback on the
> reflector and some phone conversations. It seems there is a need to
> better
> understand the meaning of the numbers in the power budget, prior to
> driving
> to solutions for those power budgets. So we will first:
> a. introduce ourselves on the call
> b. tell you what I think Glen wants us to accomplish, then see what others
> think is important
> c. discuss the interpretation of the 29dB channel insertion loss in
> context
> of the EFM power budget and make sure we all agree on what it means.
> Several
> emails on the reflector on 1/28 and 1/29 addressed this subject.
> d. begin looking at specific past proposals for meeting the 29 dB budget,
> likely to carry over to next meeting.
>
> I will send out some slides prior to meeting.
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lingle, Jr, Robert (Robert) [mailto:rlingle@OFSOPTICS.COM]
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:48 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [8023-10GEPON] FW: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group
> meeting - CORRECTE D
>
>
> There was an error in my first email w/r/t to the time of the Wednesday
> 1/31
> call. It will be held at 9AM to enable European participation.
> **************************************************************************
> **
> ************
> All,
>
> I appreciate the expression of interest I received in the Power Budget ad
> hoc from 10 individuals. I expect more than that to join the calls.
>
> The first meeting will be held Tuesday, January 30 at 7PM EST, which I
> believe is
> Wednesday January 31 at 9AM in Tokyo. This meeting would likely be
> attended by anyone in Japan, Korea, or the US West Coast.
>
> I will also hold a follow-up call on Wednesday January 31 at 9AM EST
> for anyone on the East Coast of the US or in Europe who wishes to
> participate. I believe that will be 2 or 3PM for Europe cities.
>
> Toll-free in US 866-263-8899
> Outside US 816-249-6061
> Conf. Code 7707985015
>
> I propose that the ad hoc will meet four times between now and March
> Plenary, with following goals:
>
> 1/30 & 31 - purpose is to review a summary of results and conclusions from
> previously prepared materials, discuss what seem like most likely
> solutions
> for 29dB power budgets, and to generate questions that need answers to
> turn
> preliminary conclusions into consensus conclusions based on cost and
> technical feasibility. I am preparing that presentation to review in
> consultation with others. Ad hoc participants will be expected to take
> action items from the first meeting to bring back answers to the questions
> raised.
>
> week of 2/12 - purpose is to bring back answers to questions raised in
> previous meeting and debate their meaning, with goal of focusing down on
> one
> PMD proposal one which to analyze further for the 29 dB power budget case.
>
> week of 2/26 - purpose is to finish up any unanswered questions for 29dB
> power budget solution, and begin to discuss whether the 29 dB solution can
> form the basis for reduced cost PMDs for lower power budget cases?
>
> week of 3/5 - review and revise a presentation for March plenary
>
> Robert
>
> Robert Lingle, Jr.
> Fiber Design and Transmission Research
> OFS Corporate R&D, Atlanta
> 404-886-3581 (cell)
> 770-798-5015 (office)