Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
Marek;
I think Mr. Effenberger did the reasonable request asking for 1G-EPON Class B++ optics, which wasnot specified anywhere. This doesnot mean we are going back to mess or change clause 60. We cannot avoid this if we want to do the co-existence. If we do 10G Class B++ coexist with 1G EPON Class B++, we have to know some key parameters to ensure 1G link still close after adding 10G. I see we already have good start for US.
Regards
Frank C.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hajduczenia, Marek [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@siemens.com]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:27 AM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
Dear all,
I would tend to agree with Tatsuta-san and Glen's point of view - we do not have a charter to mess with the existing clause 60 and we do not need to specify 1G-EPON Class B++ optics to work on 10G-EPON systems - we need to know what we need to coexist with and for that we do not need to actually open the said clause and provide revisions. It would create a very problematic situation on the market where Class B++ optics systems are used with 1G-EPONs and suddenly some deployments would be IEEE compliant while others would be not - IMHO I would try to avoid such course of action since it might lead to wrong perception of IEEE activities in general. The main problems I notice in this situation are as follows:
1. we can try to avoid specifying 1G with 29dB CHIL, which may in the end mean that we will have 29dB 10G system which is supposed to coexist with a non-standardized 1G system, which may make the whole system simply break down / operate incorrectly.
2. if we want to specify the 1G at 29dB, we need only to focus on the upstream channel, since 29dB 1G operation in the downstream is already assured by the existing and operating equipment. Since our PAR indicates that we can specify assymetric data rates in the 10G system, which allows us to discuss 1G upstream specs. Wanting to reuse the 1G standard as much as possible, we tend to overlook the possibility of adding a new class for 1G upstream, which in the end is the missign case of the whole puzzle.
I am not quite sure which is the better way - I would probably incline more towards option number 2 since it is more consistent in technical terms and does not result in system specs which may or may not operate under certain system conditions. I would hate to see so much good work go to waste at some time in the future if in the end it turns out that the whole coexistence was just an empty catchy word.
The questioned 3 classes of CHIL that Frank C. thinks would cause an additional workload, will definitely give us more work but at the same time, they will open new markets for 10G-EPON systems, since I doubt whether it is considered economically sound to deploy 29dB system where only 20 dB CHIL is needed in the case of shorter span and lower split count. Providing additional CHIL classes allows therefore more flexibility and better deployment cost optimization IMHO.
Best wishes
Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
SIEMENS Networks S.A. - IC COM D1 R
Rua Irmãos Siemens, 1
Ed. 1, Piso 1
Alfragide
2720-093 Amadora
Portugal
* Marek.Hajduczenia@siemens.com
http://www.marekhajduczenia.info/index.php
(+351.21.416.7472 4+351.21.424.2082
-----Original Message-----
From: TATSUTA [mailto:tatsuta@ANSL.NTT.CO.JP]
Sent: sexta-feira, 23 de Fevereiro de 2007 1:45
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
>