Re: [8023-10GEPON] Reminder to presenters and Time slot request
COMMENTS BELOW, IN CAPS
-----Original Message-----
From: Hajduczenia, Marek [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@siemens.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:05 AM
To: Frank Effenberger; STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [8023-10GEPON] Reminder to presenters and Time slot request
Dear Frank,
Thank You for a very interesting point on the 10G EPON naming - I was also
thinking about this for some time, especially after Duane opened the issue
with editorial changes and the work scope. I believe the PR and PRX options
are acceptable and are compliant with the standard naming rules which were
followed by the IEEE TF until now. I doubt though whether the argument of
being sexy will stand on the 802.3 forum :-) It is a nice addon though ...
I had a good look at You presentation and attached is what I believe is a
corrected version - there were some tiny glitches:
Slide: 9, option 1110 -> It reads: Kind of stupid - 1G down and 10G up?
I think it should read: Kind of stupid - both down and 10G up? Something
like PRXR ? - You have both 1 and 10G in the downstream channel
I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONFUSION. MY INTENT WITH THIS COMMENT IS TO SAY THAT THE
USE CASE THAT SEEMS SILLY TO ME HERE WOULD BE THE ONU THAT HAS 1G DOWN AND
10G UP. I THINK WE BOTH AGREE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT USEFUL.
Additionaly, slide 8
PR10-U = PR20-U ? Why is there an equality sign in here ? Are these ports
unanimous ?
THE EQUALS SIGN IS BECAUSE, IN MY PROPOSAL, THE ONU PORTS ARE THE SAME IN
BOTH OF THESE CASES.
I do not also agree with the 30 class numbering - 10 and 20 indicate the
target system reach. 30 would be therefor ea 30 kilometer system, which I do
not believe is the target in this case ...
Perhaps 20+ would be a better option in this case since we do not want to
change the target system reach for 29dB CHIL but rather allow for additional
loss in the fibre plant.
I WAS JUST FOLLOWING THE PATTERN. AS WE KNOW, THE HIGH POWER LINK IS IN
PRACTICE NOT USED FOR 20KM DISTANCE. SO, THE CURRENT 'MEANING' OF 10 AND 20
IS BANKRUPT, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.
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: Frank Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM]
Sent: terça-feira, 6 de Março de 2007 19:42
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Reminder to presenters and Time slot request
Duane and Marek,
I am very happy that you have looked into these editorial matters. Your
plans seem very logical.
Some musing on the issue of naming: In my presentation on power budgets, I
give some consideration for names. The "X" in the previous PON optics was
associated with the 8b10b coding. Since all the 10G proposals we are
talking about so far (I think) use the 64b66b coding. Therefore, the
correct letter to use is "R".
The asymmetric case raises interesting questions regarding what to call it,
since this case will use (I think) different data rates AND different coding
in either direction. I think the simplest way to extend this would be to
just put both designations into the name.
So, the symmetric PONs would have the letter designation: PR, and the
asymmetric PONs would be called: PRX (which has the added benefit of
sounding vaguely sexy.)
In the presentation, I tally up the port types, and end up with 12 (3 loss
grades * 2 speed combinations * 2 ends). There are actually only 7 new
power budgets (6 10G budgets, plus the 29dB upstream 1G budget).
It is interesting to note that the 12 port types listed above imply the
support of a single data rate in either direction. Actually, if we are
truly rigorous, there may be additional OLT port types, because I think it
is good if the OLT phy can support both 10G and 1G at the same time. I have
revised my presentation (attached) to include the 'truth table' that
considers all of these combinations.
On the leading speed grade designation: we start with "1000BASE" and
"10GBASE". If we just hybridize, we get the unwieldy "10G1000BASE" - that's
no good. We could shorten to "10/1GBASE". Or, we could follow Glen's
advice and say "11GBASE". Actually, both of these could be useful, because
the 10/1 could be used for the asymmetric case, while 11 could be used for
dual-support. I add these thoughts into the revision, as well.
Of course, we can try to pare down all the combinations to a smaller set.
Certainly, 27 port types (including the existing 1G PONs) is a lot.
Sincerely,
Frank Effenberger.
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Remein [mailto:duane.remein@ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 6:00 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [8023-10GEPON] Reminder to presenters and Time slot request
All,
Please remember that Glen is traveling and has asked me to upload
presentations to the IEEE WEB site. So far I have 1 presentation from
Peter Anslow, 5 from Frank E., 1 from Marek H. and 1 from Glen (along
with the one from myself attached).
Glen,
Can I please get about 15 minutes to present the attached file on behalf
of Marek and myself at the Orlando meeting? The presentation covers
some preliminary logistics to help provide us with direction in
preparing for Draft 1 editing tasks.
Thanks
Duane