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