Re: [8023-10GEPON] power budget ad hoc teleconference
Dear Hamano-san and others:
Thank you for your clarifications, I am finishing up Alphion's FSAN
contribution today, and unfortunately I was not able to prepare
materials for the conference call. I will work to get something out
before the next meeting on the eighth. It is my plan to put together
both experiment to compare with calculation for the May meeting.
I will address both issues raised by Hamano-san.
Briefly, the when the SOA / PIN combination is used, the power penalty
in the SOA/PIN receiver can be much less than 1 dB per dB of increased
loss between SOA and PIN. This is because the receiver is not operating
in the thermal noise limited regime.
As far as the dynamic range, this is certainly a concern, as with
alternate solutions. The SOA does enable the use of a PIN which
generally has a better range (especially on the overload end) compared
to an APD. 20 dB dynamic range would be challenging as it would be with
a APD.
I will be available on the conference call (at 1PM EST today), and I
would appreciate any additional comments or questions.
David Piehler
Alphion
mobile: +1 732 692 4581
-----Original Message-----
From: Hiroshi HAMANO [mailto:hamano.hiroshi@JP.FUJITSU.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:38 AM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] power budget ad hoc teleconference
Dear Dr.Piehler,
Thank you for your quick response.
I am afraid I do not have PhD degree to be called 'Dr.'...
I apologize that I cannot join the teleconference today (or tomorrow??).
Because of the midst of the holiday week here in Japan, I can only join
another one next week. E-mail may be more convenient for us.
And I would like to make some short comments below.
> I do not suggest using an unfiltered SOA, and I apologize for not
> making this more clear. Any number of alternate filters can improve
> upon the situation, but for sake of argument, consider a filter that
> has no attenuation in the 10 G band (1304 - 1316 nm) but 3 dB of
> attenuation everywhere else. Such a filter would improve the 10 G
> sensitivity, while making the 1.25 G (out of band sensitivity worse.)
> Since we have sensitivity to spare on the side of the 1.25 G
> (unfiltered) PIN + SOA side such a filter could improve the net
performance.
I am not sure that there is such a 3-dB headroom for 1.25G sensitivity
compared to 10G for dual-rate operation.
> In the second item I did give a rough, meaning heuristic, or "back of
> the envelope" calculation for unfiltered SOA + PIN sensitivities. I
> neglected to go into detail in the interest of space. My conclusions
> can be backed up by more detailed calculations, see for example -
> Takashima, et al. paper ThG3, OFC2003; Ruhl and Ayre, PTL, p. 358
> (1993), etc...
>
> I should also note the that the dependence of receiver sensitivity on
> SOA gain is small. Recall that since the receiver noise is
> RIN-limited, not thermal limited, Q is not a strong function of
receiver power.
I apologize if my explanation was not clear and made you confused.
To achieve -25dBm with SOA+PIN at the PIN sensitivity of -18dBm, I
suppose, 7dB SOA gain is not enough. At least 11dB-gain SOA should be
prepared, or rather, 14dB-gain SOA is preferred for margins to achieve
such a receiver sensitivity independent situation.
Both of the papers, you have indicated above, show also that the
sufficient gain of SOA or EDFA was prepared to achieve their results.
But this additional gain may cause the dynamic range problem with PON
systems which we discuss about.
Best regards,
Hiroshi Hamano
Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
%% "David Piehler" <dpiehler@alphion.com> %% RE: [8023-10GEPON] power
budget ad hoc teleconference %% Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:02:31 -0400
> Dear Dr. Hamano:
>
> Thank you for your constructive criticism. I cannot agree with your
> conclusion however, as I outline below.
>
> With regard to your first point - I think we generally agree. In fact
> I stated that
>
> "(an unfiltered SOA + PIN) by itself is a slight improvement over an
> APD at 10 Gb/s"
>
> I do not suggest using an unfiltered SOA, and I apologize for not
> making this more clear. Any number of alternate filters can improve
> upon the situation, but for sake of argument, consider a filter that
> has no attenuation in the 10 G band (1304 - 1316 nm) but 3 dB of
> attenuation everywhere else. Such a filter would improve the 10 G
> sensitivity, while making the 1.25 G (out of band sensitivity worse.)
> Since we have sensitivity to spare on the side of the 1.25 G
> (unfiltered) PIN + SOA side such a filter could improve the net
performance.
>
> In the second item I did give a rough, meaning heuristic, or "back of
> the envelope" calculation for unfiltered SOA + PIN sensitivities. I
> neglected to go into detail in the interest of space. My conclusions
> can be backed up by more detailed calculations, see for example -
> Takashima, et al. paper ThG3, OFC2003; Ruhl and Ayre, PTL, p. 358
> (1993), etc...
>
> I should also note the that the dependence of receiver sensitivity on
> SOA gain is small. Recall that since the receiver noise is
> RIN-limited, not thermal limited, Q is not a strong function of
receiver power.
>
> I will assemble a more detailed response, and distribute it on the
> email list before the ad-hoc conference call. I will be on the
> conference call this week, to address any questions that may arise.
> If there are other concerns I will try to prepare a response before
> the conference call.
>
> Considering the alternatives (insufficient optical power to meet link
> budget, sensitivity to ONU costs vs OLT costs, and the 1G/10G dual
> rate "penalty" and associated "dynamic" TIA for mitigation), I think
> the SOA
> + PIN approach has significant merit.
>
> With best regards,
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> David Piehler
> Alphion
> mobile: +1 732 692 4581
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiroshi HAMANO [mailto:hamano.hiroshi@JP.FUJITSU.COM]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:30 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] power budget ad hoc teleconference
>
> Dear Dr. Piehler and Ad hoc members,
>
> I would like to make several comments on your summary about SOA
preamps.
>
> in 10G OLT receiver. To tell the truth, now I feel that non-filtered
> SOA preamp. for OLT receiver is not effective and realistic for
> 10GEPON upstream.
>
> 1. Sensitivity with non-filtered SOA
> > 10 Gb/s data presented at the November meeting
> > (3av_0611_spiekman_1.pdf; page 19), show that at SOA with no optical
> > filter between the SOA and the PIN; can improve the sensitivity of a
> > "bare" by 7 dB. (These results were by no means remarkable (e.g. 8
> > dB
>
> > SOA noise figure) and similar results can be found in the
literature.
>
> In the presentation material referred above (3av_0611_spiekman_1.pdf;
> page 19), -27dBm sensitivity is shown as the non-filtered SOA with
> 80nm 3dB(!!)-bandwidth.
> But it shows the sensitivity at the BER of 10-9, which should be 2dB
> worse at 10-12. Regarding 1dB polarization dependent gain, its
> sensitivity would be -24dBm, which, I believe, is no better than the
> APD receiver sensitivity.
>
> 2. Receiver dynamic range
> > Now plug in whatever numbers you want for 10 and 1.25 Gb/s PIN
> > sensitivities - I'll use -18 dBm (10G) and -25 dBm (1.25 Gb/s) - The
> > result is a receiver with -32 dBm sensitivity at 1.25 Gb/s and -25
> > dBm
>
> > at 10 Gb/s. This by itself is a slight improvement over an APD at
> > 10 Gb/s (Frank used -24 dBm in his presentation.) At 1.25 Gb/s
> > sensitivity this is > 2 dB better than the critical 29.7 dBm
> > requirement for the legacy GE-PON.
>
> I feel somewhat strange in your explanation in the paragraph here.
> SOA receiver sensitivity shall be determined by SOA noise, and cannot
> be expressed as an additional increment from the PIN receiver
sensitivity.
> To avoid the degradation caused by PIN receiver noise, SOA gain should
> be selected to adjust SOA output power into the perfect error-free
> range of the PIN receiver input, 3 or 4 dB away from 10G sensitivity
> at BER 10-12.
> If you use -18dBm as the 10G sensitivity, PIN receiver input power,
> shall be around -12dBm, also considering additional margin for SOA
> gain deviation and lifetime degradation.
> (I suppose that -27dBm SOA sensitivity in your literature was achieved
> on such a similar experiment set-up.)
>
> In the PON system application, almost 20-dB dynamic range is required
> for OLT receiver to handle the distance variety of ONUs, their output
> power fluctuation, and also different ODN configurations.
> As SOA is only a simple fixed-gain block, PIN receiver input also
> changes 20dB, up to +8dBm, heavily exceeds the receiver overload.
>
> I believe that high-power optical source development for 10G ONU
> transmitter is anyway indispensable, and as it takes years to develop,
> it is significant to show optical component suppliers the development
> target, at this time of the moment in Draft.1.
> I appreciate any comments or discussions.
>
> Best regards,
> Hiroshi Hamano
> Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
>
> ---
> ---------------------------------------------
> HIROSHI HAMANO Network Systems Labs.
> FUJITSU Labs. Ltd., Kawasaki, 211-8588 JAPAN
> TEL: +81-44-754-2641 FAX: +81-44-754-2640
> E-mail: hhlsi@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> %% David Piehler <dpiehler@ALPHION.COM> %% Re: [8023-10GEPON] power
> budget ad hoc teleconference %% Tue, 10 Apr
> 2007 22:55:11 -0400
>
> > I believe that a SOA-PIN combination receiver may have better
> > sensitivity by several dB over an APD receiver for the upstream for
> > the
> > B++ situation with 1G/10G coexistence.
> >
> > At Robert's request, here is a summary of what I stated on tonight's
> > call with some additional backup information. In this note, I will
> > make use of "back of the envelope" calculations. However, I have
> > also
>
> > made more detailed models, and we have experiments under way to
> > verify
>
> > predictions. Also I assume no FEC in any of the following.
> >
> > In addition, to reducing the power requirements on the ONU
> > transmitter, such a receiver would be RIN-noise limited, and not
> > suffer from the "dual rate problem" (see for example
> > 3av_0703_effenberger_4.pdf) - and the "smart TIA" would not need to
> > be
> invented.
> >
> > The SOA had been previously discounted as a potential upstream
> > receiver since a "noise blocking filter" for the 10G upstream signal
> > (e.g. at 1310 +/- 6 nm) would potentially block the legacy GE-PON
> > upstream signals (1260 - 1360 nm).
> >
> > 10 Gb/s data presented at the November meeting
> > (3av_0611_spiekman_1.pdf; page 19), show that at SOA with no optical
> > filter between the SOA and the PIN; can improve the sensitivity of a
> > "bare" by 7 dB. (These results were by no means remarkable (e.g. 8
> > dB
>
> > SOA noise figure) and similar results can be found in the
literature.
> >
> > Roughly speaking a 1.25 Gb/s PIN would see a similar improvement
> > with
> an
> > unfiltered SOA as a pre-amplifier.
> >
> > Now plug in whatever numbers you want for 10 and 1.25 Gb/s PIN
> > sensitivities - I'll use -18 dBm (10G) and -25 dBm (1.25 Gb/s) - The
> > result is a receiver with -32 dBm sensitivity at 1.25 Gb/s and -25
> > dBm
>
> > at 10 Gb/s. This by itself is a slight improvement over an APD at
> > 10 Gb/s (Frank used -24 dBm in his presentation.) At 1.25 Gb/s
> > sensitivity this is > 2 dB better than the critical 29.7 dBm
> > requirement for the legacy GE-PON.
> >
> > These results can be improved upon by inserting a "noise blocking
> > filter". The filter certainly cannot completely block the 1260-1360
> > nm legacy GE-PON signal, but since there is some 1.25 Gb/s
> > sensitivity
>
> > margin to spare, one can attenuate some of the 1.25 Gb/s signal that
> > lies outside of the wavelength spec of the 10 Gb/s signal.
> >
> > As a result sensitivities of -30 dBm at 1.25 Gb/s and -28 dBm at 10
> > Gb/s should be possible using a SOA-PIN combination, appropriate
> > optical filter, and a shared TIA, optimized for 10 Gb/s operation.
> > Even better performance is possible with a more tightly wavelength
> > controlled 10 Gb/s transmitter.
> >
> > The 100 nm operating bandwidth, should also not be a problem, see
> > for
> > example:
> >
> > In-service upgrade of an amplified 130-km metro CWDM transmission
> > system using a single LOA with 140-nm bandwidth Iannone, P.;
> > Reichmann, K.; Spiekman, L.
> > Optical Fiber Communications Conference, 2003. OFC 2003 Volume ,
> > Issue
>
> > , 23-28 March 2003 Page(s): 548 - 550 vol.2
> > Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/OFC.2003.1248402
> > Summary: We demonstrate a 130-km metro CWDM transmission system
> > using a single LOA with 140-nm bandwidth. An in-service upgrade, for
> > which one of the eight 2.5-Gb/s CWDM channels is replaced with 8/spl
> > times/2.5-Gb/s DWDM channels, results in negligible performance
> > degradation.
> >
> > As indicated above, more sophisticated models exist, and we are
> > experimenting with this idea.
> >
> > I would appreciate any feedback or critisism. We hope to share
> > additional data with this forum.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David Piehler
> > Alphion
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lingle, Jr, Robert (Robert) [mailto:rlingle@OFSOPTICS.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:09 AM
> > To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] power budget ad hoc teleconference
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > The next call(s) will occur on Tuesday April 10 at 7PM EST and
> > Wednesday April 11 at 9AM EST.
> >
> > (Because of the US time change in March, I believe that 7PM EST
> > Tuesday is now 8AM Japan time on Wednesday.)
> >
> > Toll-free in US 866-263-8899
> > Outside US 816-249-6061
> > Conf. Code 7707985015
> >
> > The following Orlando presentations, among others, may be relevant
> > to the
> > discussions:
> >
> > 3av_0703_effenberger_1
> > 3av_0703_takizawa_1
> > 3av_0703_jiang_1
> > 3av_0703_stefanov_2
> >
> > In the call, I would like to address the following items. Please
> > address them on the Reflector prior to the call.
> >
> > 1. Much attention has been focused on the class B++ CH IL case. The
> > only proposed power budgets for PX10 and PX20 are those in
> > 3av_0703_effenberger_1, slides 6 and 7. Are Frank's numbers for PX10
> > and PX20 met with components available today? Or would these also
> > require development as in the case of B++? Does anyone recommend any
> > changes to these? If not, should we plan to adopt them at the May
> meeting?
> >
> > 2. In analyzing the power budgets from effenberger and takizawa for
> > class
> > B++, it seems clear (at least to me) that the following components
> > B++must
> > be
> > developed to meet the power budgets:
> >
> > -- US 1300nm requires the development of a NEW DML, perhaps cooled,
> > that can output 3-4 dBm minimum at 1300nm, compared to a more
> > typical 0 to 1 dBm at present.
> > -- DS w/ APD requires a NEW EML with +3 dBm minimum output power,
> > compared to a -1 to 0 dBm typical minimum output power at present.
> > -- DS w/ PIN can be done with existing EML+EDFA; it MIGHT be done
> > with
>
> > existing SOA with Psat(1dB)=10dBm, but might require development of
> > an
>
> > SOA with higher Psat(1dB)=12 dBm.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lingle, Jr, Robert (Robert) [mailto:rlingle@OFSOPTICS.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:07 AM
> > To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: [8023-10GEPON] power budget ad hoc teleconference
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > The next Power Budget Ad Hoc teleconference will occur on Tuesday
> > April 10 at 7PM EST and Wednesday April 1 tentatively at 9AM EST. I
> > may have to travel Wednesday and ask your flexibility if I need to
> > push this time to 8:30AM or 9:30AM to accomodate.
> >
> > The topics will be a review of power budgets presented at the March
> > Plenary by Frank Effenberger and Wenbin Jiang, as well as
> > implications
>
> > of the presentation by Stefanov on SOA output power issues.
> >
> > More details will follow.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > Robert Lingle, Jr.
> > Fiber Design and Transmission Simulation OFS Corporate R&D, Atlanta
> > 404-886-3581 (cell)
> > 770-798-5015 (office)
> >
> >
>
>