| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Glen, If we adopt the approach that you list here: "Ideally I'd like the 10G PMD clause to simply state 'For upstream
PMD parameters for asymmetric EPON, refer to Clause 60' with the understanding that vendors will
use their current high power budget upstream implementations when they use
class B++ in the downstream.", then we are basically writing a standard that
is intended to be ignored. And, how exactly in the standard to we
codify “with the understanding”??? As long as we plan to consider 29 dB loss budget for 10G, then
referring to the existing 1G clause is not right, because it doesn’t work
with a 29 dB IL. And, if the situation is as you say, with multiple
systems out there, then it sounds like it needs standardization. We
shouldn’t shrink from the challenge. Regarding the PAR, 1G upstream
transmission is in our charter – we are not required to just reference
clause 60, especially if it causes the system to break. And break it
shall, if we try to standardize a 29 dB IL for the 10G system. In my opinion, working on standardizing this gray area would indeed put
us closer to our goal, Glen, because it would get the real EPON optics makers
in the room and involved. Currently, we do not have the right people, or
those who are here are not speaking up. This is the biggest
problem. Sincerely, Frank E. -----Original Message----- Frank E. and All, > My only point is that the 1G version of the 29 dB loss is > currently unspecified, but is in fact what is in the field. The matter of fact that 29dB implementations are somewhat different.
Opening this debate would be a huge can of worms, as someone's deployed devices
would suddenly become "standard" and someone else's deployed devices
would suddenly become "non-standard". And this extra work would not
bring us a bit closer to our stated goal. I also want to emphasize that our approved PAR says "The scope of this project is to amend IEEE Std 802.3 to add
physical layer specifications and management parameters for symmetric and/or
asymmetric operation at 10 Gb/s on point-to-multipoint passive optical
networks." It is not in our charter to make improvements to 1Gb/s EPON, such as
defining 29dB budget for 1Gb/s EPON. Recently another TF ran into big problems
when their draft was perceived to not match the stated scope. The purpose of asymmetric EPON is to allow carriers to keep upstream
exactly as it is being deployed today. Ideally I'd like the 10G PMD
clause to simply state "For upstream PMD parameters for asymmetric EPON,
refer to Clause 60" with the understanding that vendors will use their
current high power budget upstream implementations when they use class B++ in
the downstream. Any comments? Glen ________________________________________ From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:53 PM To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion Dear Duane, Hold on, now. Don't paint me with the same brush! I think Mr. Chang went too far in his Email about 'work load'. For the record, Mr. Effenberger believes that we should standardize 3
channel loss systems. My only point is that the 1G version of the 29 dB loss is currently
unspecified, but is in fact what is in the field. So, we should hear from the guys in the field on their version of
clause 60. Sincerely, Mr. Effenberger ________________________________________ From: Duane Remein [mailto:duane.remein@ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:02 PM To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion Frank & Frank, I believe the straw polls we took clearly indicated we favored three
plans; ~20, ~24 and ~29 dBm. I agree a single plan would be less work
load. Are you proposing we take another straw poll to see if anything has
changed. Duane Straw Poll Results How many 10 Gb Optical Power Budgets should we standardize on (Compatibility
with PX10 and PX20 is assumed to be a requirement)? 1: 1 2: 6 3: 23 Which 3 Maximum Channel Insertion Loss do you prefer? ~20dB, ~24dB, ~28 dB (i.e. PX10, PX20, B+): ~20dB, ~24dB, ~29 dB (i.e. PX10, PX20, B++): ~20dB, ~24dB, ~30 dB (i.e. PX10, PX20, C): Y: 6 13 2 Frank Chang wrote: Dear Frank; I realized this. I am very glad you make this straight. We used to plan
the survey to find the answer on how much portion of market for each budget,
now if 1G EPON does NOT use PX-10 or PX-20 optics, then the group really need
to define only one 29dB budget instead of three. Also this higher one can cover
the lower ones. This will significantly simplify the group work load. Regards Frank C. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:50 AM To: Frank Chang; STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org Subject: RE: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion Dear Frank, Unfortunately, you are mistaken: The current 1G EPON does NOT use PX-10 or PX-20 optics. NTT has been telling us that for about a year now. Regards, Frank E. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Chang [mailto:ychang@VITESSE.COM] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:58 PM To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion Frank et al. I have asked the group similar questions before but in different way.
My interpretation is that we maynot have to do 1/10 coexistence for 29dB budget. If current 1G use PX-10 and PX-20 optics specified at 20dB and
24dB, then assuming 10G optics going to share the same fiber installment, so
it doesnot make any sense to me we have to specify 10G budget as 29dB for
the same ODN. I donot think the extra loss form connector hold true here. My understanding 1/10 coexistence is only for 20dB and 24dB budgets,
29dB budget will be a standalone case for 10G, addressing the apps similar
to gpon B+ case, unless the current 1G deployment use aggressive budgets
other than spec'd. Regards Frank C. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:03 AM To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion Dear All, I have an observation to make... It seems that the current
standard specifies loss budgets for PX-10 and PX-20 optics at 20dB and 24dB. However, it should be clear by now that the actual fielded optics are
in most cases producing an Insertion Loss budget of 29dB. I think we
are missing a standard specification for this. If that was all, then IEEE could decide to revise clause 60 (or whatever editorial method you want to do), or decide not to (and leave the
market to its own devices: pun intended). However, our task force has
embarked on the standardization of 10/1 optics, and it seems that many folks want to consider the 29dB budget, and compatibility with 1/1G EPON is also
desired. So, I don't think we have a choice - we need to define what the 29 dB
power budget is for 1G EPON. (And note: by power budget, I mean the
specification of the transmitter and receiver power ranges, any penalties that come
to bear - in short, everything you find in clause 60.) If we don't specify the budget of the practical 1G EPON optics, then we cannot do a proper job of considering compatibility, shared use of the 1310nm channel, and so forth. It is critical. So, since we seem to have a gathering of the Japanese companies that
are deeply involved in the 1G EPON deployments, it is a good time to ask
them to please present, to our task force, what is their version of clause 60
for the "29dB" 1G EPON systems, in the field today. Sincerely, Frank Effenberger -----Original Message----- From: Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:47 AM To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org Subject: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion All, As I was assigned in the last telecon to form a group to work on a Tx and Rx characteristic table for the 29dB CHIL especially from the view point of system vendors, we had a discussion on it among some Japanese members. I don't submit the draft table to here now. We did have draft characteristic tables from some vendors but we ended up modifying them again considering the issues we came up with in the call. This is an intermediate report of our talk. <Date> Feb 20, 1:00PM-3:00PM JST <Participants> Tsutomu Tatsuta NTT Akihiro Otaka NTT Ken-ichi Suzuki NTT Tomoaki Masuta NEC Akio Tajima NEC Toshiaki Mukojima Oki Shinji Tsuji Sumitomo Hiroki Ikeda Satoshi Shirai Mitsubishi Naoki Suzuki Mitsubishi Hiroshi Hamano Fujitsu Laboratory Tetsuya Yokomoto Fujitsu Access Motoyuki Takizawa Fujitsu Access <Assumption> The assumption of wavelengths were 1.31um for US and 1.57um for DS, following the solution 3 in the presentation below. http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_01/3av_0701_tatsuta_1.pdf <Downstream> The main point was wheather applying PIN-PD or APD in the ONU. Needless to say, PIN should be better for the cost reason, however we need to take a risk applying 'high power' SOA at the OLT that has less maturity (reliability). One idea of judging this is if the ONUs should have the same architecture for each class(PX10, PX20, ClassB++) as same as 802.3ah standard. It will have an influence on cost and selection for pieces of components both on the OLT/ONU. <Upstream> "PD + Preamp -------- DFB(EML)" would be a preferable
solution for many of us. But we need a narrow band filter between Preamp(SOA) and PD and it doesn't seem we can have 1G/10G coexistence at the moment for this reason because 1GEPON needs 100nm band around 1310nm. Possible solutions are: - Seeking possibility of increasing LD(DFB/EML) power - Considering another appropriate wavelength for US Another topic was the availability of uncooled laser @10G with broad range of temperature(-40 to +85 degrees C), which will be expected to use for PX10/PX20. <Action Item> - Revise the draft charasteristic table DS: PD vs APD, considering if all ONUs should have the same arthitecture for each class. US: Study two solutions in detail. - Study availability of uncooled 10G laser with broad temperature range(-40 to +85 degrees C). Next discussion will be held on 2/23 JST. [Clarification] This local talk is actually not a closed one but I think it is important to make a draft ASAP and that it is good to have a local discussion among Japanese System Vendors first like I was asked to in the last telecon, maybe for the reason of timezone, language, etc... I think I'll report back to the ad hoc here and we'll have a fruitful discussion. Best Regards, -- Motoyuki Takizawa |