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

Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion



Dear Frank,

I reconsidered what you said, and I realized we needed to clarify a 
receiver spec of 1G-EPON@29dBm CHIL to discuss the dual-rate burst mode receiver.
Our spec is

Receiver sensitivity OMA (max) : -27.6dBm

Is it enough to consider the dual-rate burst mode receiver?

Sincerely yours,
Tsutomu TATSUTA



At 11:47 07/02/23, Frank Effenberger wrote:
 >Dear Tatsuta-san,
 >
 >You have come to the group, asking us to consider interoperability with the
 >29 dB IL PONs that you have deployed, AND compatibility with the existing 29
 >dB capable 1G EPONs you have deployed.  And, I would like to give it to you.
 >But, in order for me to be compatible with something, I have to know what
 >that something is.  Right now, the 29 dB system is something of a
 >proprietary secret, or so it seems.  I can talk to certain vendors for their
 >answers, but that is inconsistent and hardly authoritative.
 >
 >So, I think that we need to get the 29 dB current situation completely out
 >in the open, and stop hiding.  That is, if you want to have any credible
 >chance of actually producing a workable system at 29 dB.
 >
 >The alternative is that the group should just forget about the 29 dB
 >situation.  We can just standardize the 20 and 24 dB cases, and then rely on
 >others to figure out the 29 dB solution behind closed doors.
 >
 >Is that what you really want?
 >
 >Sincerely,
 >Frank Effenberger
 >
 >p.s. And, no, it is not enough to say that we are using an APD for 1G
 >upstream.  A receiver is much more than the APD, and the dual-rate burst
 >mode APD device issue is what is really forcing this issue.  If we want to
 >do a valid job in my little ad-hoc, I need to know what sensitivity at 1G
 >(upstream) the dual rate receiver needs to have.
 >
 >And, even if we went to a purely WDM coexistence approach, we need to know
 >the power levels of the 1G interferer signals to estimate the crosstalk.
 >
 >
 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: TATSUTA [mailto:tatsuta@ANSL.NTT.CO.JP]
 >Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:45 PM
 >To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
 >Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
 >
 >Frank and Glen,
 >
 >I do not think a specification of Class B++ (29dB CHIL) of 1G-EPON is
 >mandatory to decide one of 10G-EPON.
 >Only a point we need to clarify is what type of an optical receiver is used
 >for Class B++ of 1G-EPON.
 >I believe every carrier will use or is using APD for it.
 >
 >Is my assumption wrong?
 >
 >Sincerely yours,
 >Tsutomu Tatsuta
 >
 >
 >At 07:51 07/02/23, Glen Kramer wrote:
 > >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: Motoyuki TAKIZAWA [mailto:mtaki@ACCESS.FUJITSU.COM]
 > >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       Hitachi
 > >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
 > >Fujitsu Access Ltd. R&D Center
 > >

**********************************

NTT アクセスサービスシステム研究所
光アクセスシステムプロジェクト
フルサービスアクセスG

立田 努

電話番号:043-211-3115(直通)
FAX番号:043-211-8875

**********************************