Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
Frank,
Perhaps I was not clear in what I meant.
Ideally I'd like the 10G PMD clause to simply state 'For upstream PMD parameters for asymmetric EPON, refer to Clause 60'. Period.
The understanding that existing high-budget optics would continue to be used is implicit - since there are no changes to the relevant spec, there are no changes to existing status quo (i.e., what is being deployed for 1G now will continue being deployed).
The only point I was trying to make was that trying to standardize something that is already in the field would be an uphill battle that I would like the task force to avoid. I am very concerned that discussions for B++ class for 1G would focus not on technical and economic feasibility, as they supposed to, but on historic events, market penetrations, etc. - i.e., on items we cannot discuss and that we'll get into stalemate we won't be able to resolve.
Will we be able to avoid standardizing B++ for 1G? I don't know. But I ask you and everybody that we try and see how far we can go without opening 1G specs for revisions/additions.
I understand that as a leader of multi-rate PMD ad hoc you are probably in the most difficult position. If you think we cannot move forward at all, even if we get sufficient input regarding actual 1G implementations, then please bring this discussion up in Orlando and let us as a group chart the course and get 802.3 position on this as early as possible.
And yes, you are absolutely correct noting that we are lacking participation from optics vendors in our task force. I will try to contact them individually and emphasize how important their participation is ... to IEEE as well as to themselves.
Thanks and Regards,
Glen
________________________________________
From: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:27 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
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-----
From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@teknovus.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:52 PM
To: Frank Effenberger; STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] Report of local discussion
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