Re: [8023-10GEPON] Downstream wavelength review
Dear Suzuki-san,
Sorry for misunderstanding Your thoughts. Did my best :)
As for the issue - if You believe that the condition for the support for this particular option is to allow for wavelength band "drift" between 1574 and 1600 nm, I believe we can work it out: set the nominal wavelength window to 1580 - 1600 nm with 20 nm width and allow for conforming PR10/PR20 devices to locate the band in the 1574 - 1600 nm window. Please note that I object to using the term "drift" ... That might bring out a lot of critical comments at the later stage when moving to balloting. I believe we can work out the contents of the footnote during the meeting or even before it. Perhaps You could propose something that would be satisfactory for You ...
Looking forward to receiving an answer from You
Kindest regards
Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - 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
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken-Ichi Suzuki [mailto:kenyichi@ansl.ntt.co.jp]
Sent: sexta-feira, 31 de Agosto de 2007 14:48
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Downstream wavelength review
Dear Marek,
I would like to explain my thought again because I feel my thought is
not understood well.
(1)I have already accepted the proposal of Frank's additional compromise
(about addition to footnote).
Basically, I believe we do not have to limit the wavelength because we
can freely choose the center wavelength from the range of Option D.
http://www.ieee802.org/3/10GEPON_study/email/msg00655.html
However I can compromise Frank's thought that the nominal wavelengths
remain the 1580 to 1600 values if footnote can be added at least.
(2)I have already got Japanese vendor's opinions.
I am sure they will agree to Option D, basically. But about a half of
them seem to consider the wavelength limitation as being premature
because power budgets have not been decided yet.
So I am not sure they will agree to Motion although I am sure they will
vote Option D in straw poll because Straw Poll does not limit the
wavelength range of Option D.
Then I said that we should not limit the wavelength range of Option D
yet, because I would not like to wait the decision of the power budget
ad-hoc any more.
(At least, I thought we should adopt full wavelength range as a baseline
because we would have chances to change it after the decision of power
budgets.)
But I would like to say that again, I can compromise if footnote can be
added at least.
Best regards,
Ken-Ichi
At 2007/08/31 15:34 Hajduczenia, Marek wrote:
> Dear Suzuki-san,
> What You are generally saying is that in order to decide the downstream wavelemngth, we need to wait for the outcome of the power budget ad-hoc, which is nowhere close to any kind of compromise regarding the numbers for downstream. It is a vicious circle and I believe that narrowing down the options for the downstream channel would help them focus on what they can do with the power budget.
> If You believe that the proposal for extended band i.e. 1574 - 1600 nm for all power classes would be accepted by everyone (so far I heard opinions of 4 people out of the whole group - where is everyone else ??), we could potentially indciate in the footnotes in the tables that PR10/PR20 classes are to aligned with CWDM grid in the case of uncooled devices. How would that sound ? This way we would have the best out of both solutions I believe and still we could get away with that in technical terms. Such a statement could be read then as follows: if You need to use a cooled device, feel free to chose where You want to transmit. If You use an uncooled device, use CDWM grid.
> Let's see how it this one sticks :)
> Best wishes
>
> Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
> NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - 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
> "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken-Ichi Suzuki [mailto:kenyichi@ansl.ntt.co.jp]
> Sent: sexta-feira, 31 de Agosto de 2007 3:28
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Downstream wavelength review
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> Thank you for your response and proposal.
> It is only my concern.
>
> I think it depends on the decision of the power budget plan because:
> -If we use a PIN-PD for a PX/20 ONU receiver, I think an OLT transmitter
> will need cooled system because of its high out-put power more than 5 dBm.
> -Moreover, if we use an APD for PX30 and a PIN-PD for PX10, each OLT has
> almost the same output power range.
> So I thought the full wavelength window for PX10/20 was a good
> compromise to eliminate the dependency on the power budget plan.
>
> But, I feel your additional compromise is good for me as well.
>
> Best regards,
> Ken-Ichi
>
> At 2007/08/31 0:16 Frank Effenberger wrote:
>> Dear Ken-Ichi,
>>
>> I have a question about your idea: Why would somebody want to make an OLT that supports PX10-20-30?
>>
>> The whole point of making a PX10 or PX20 is to make a cheaper OLT. If you make an OLT that supports PX30, you will have already spent the extra cost to make the high-power OLT... You don't gain anything to down grade it.
>>
>> If you are thinking about just being able to say, "My OLT complies with PX10/20/30 optical specs," well, I doubt you will ever be able to do that. We haven't finalized the entire power budget yet, but it seems that in most proposals the PX10/20 are considerably lower in power. Are you going to try to implement power control? That's more cost, to make an OLT that does less!
>> I don't think it is an attractive feature.
>>
>> Marek correctly pointed out that the use of a band from 1580 to 1600 is very attractive for the reason that it coincides with the CWDM band plan. I worry that if we define the PX10 and PX20 band to be the 'odd' 1574 to 1600nm, then it confuses the issue.
>>
>> Toward a compromise, would you accept a situation where we specify the PX10 and PX20 Tx bands to be 1580 to 1600nm, but we add a note like:
>>
>> Note: Deviations of the PX10 and PX20 Tx wavelength down to 1574nm are permissible.
>>
>>
>> You may think this sounds strange, but I really think it adds value, in that the nominal wavelengths remain the 'normal sounding' 1580 to 1600 values, yet it gives you the latitude that you want.
>>
>> How about that?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Frank E.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ken-Ichi Suzuki [mailto:kenyichi@ansl.ntt.co.jp]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:37 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Downstream wavelength review
>>
>> Dear Marek and all,
>>
>> Thank you for your answer.
>> So I believe we should not limit the wavelength range of PX10/20
>> transmitters considering both the use of CWDM grid and compatibility
>> to PX30 cooled-lasers, if there are no reasons for that limitation.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ken-Ichi
>>
>> At 2007/08/30 17:23 Hajduczenia, Marek wrote:
>>> Dear Otaka-san,
>>> >From what I gather from the presentations provided so far, the OLT transmitters required for PR30 systems have different requirements than PR10/PR20 ones - for once, they require (most likely) cooling which is not required (at least that is what I gather) for PR10s and PR20s. I would like to learn the opinions of components vendors - they are more likely to be familiar with market availability of 1580 - 1600 nm devices meeting PR10/20 requirements.
>>> Please note also that the ONU receiver remains a universal device, with the sensitivity window spanning between 1574 and 1600 nm, thus covering both PR10/20 and PR30 devices on the other end of the link. The only differentation here would be the OLT transmitter, nothing else.
>>> Any other comments ?
>>> Thank You for Your feedback
>>>
>>> Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
>>> NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - 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
>>> "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Akihiro Otaka [mailto:ootaka@ansl.ntt.co.jp]
>>> Sent: quinta-feira, 30 de Agosto de 2007 9:18
>>> To: Hajduczenia, Marek; STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>>> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Downstream wavelength review
>>>
>>> Dear Marek and all.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your prompt comment.
>>> This is Akihiro Otaka.
>>>
>>> I think if there are someone who try to realize B++ and PX20/10
>>> OLT with identical device (it may be a cooled device), the superset
>>> band idea is better for them.
>>>
>>> Are there no such requirement in practice?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Akihiro Otaka
>>>
>>>
>>> At 16:18 07/08/30, Hajduczenia, Marek wrote:
>>> >Dear Suzuki-san,
>>> >
>>> >I believe I may answer this question since Frank is probably still at night
>>> >time (Frank, please confirm if I what I am saying is OK) ...
>>> >The main reason why Frank proposes to have PR10/PR20 PMDs use the 1580 -
>>> >1600 nm window in the downstream is the compatibility with the CDWM
>>> >wavelength grid and the availability of uncooled transmitters centered
>>> >around 1590 nm with the power putput sufficient to cope with these
>>> >particular power budgets. You are right that it does little harm to expand
>>> >the band to 1574 - 1600 though the big question is whether it will be used
>>> >in practice. I do not see a reason to block part of the band which will not
>>> >be used by the PMDs anyway.
>>> >
>>> >Hope that answers Your question
>>> >
>>> >Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
>>> >NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - R
>>> >Rua Irmテ」os 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
>>> >"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but
>>> >when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Ken-Ichi Suzuki [mailto:kenyichi@ansl.ntt.co.jp]
>>> >Sent: quinta-feira, 30 de Agosto de 2007 8:00
>>> >To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>>> >Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Downstream wavelength review
>>> >
>>> >Dear Frank
>>> >
>>> >Thank you for your proposal.
>>> >Basically, I agree to your proposal.
>>> >But I have a comment on Option D.
>>> >
>>> >I believe the full wavelength range of 1574 to 1600 nm can be used
>>> >for PX10 and PX20 in Option D.
>>> >If someone wants to use the range of 1574 to 1580 for PX10 and PX20
>>> >as well as the range of 1580 to 1600 nm, I think we should not limit
>>> >the wavelength range of Option D.
>>> >
>>> >So I would like to confirm whether we should limit the wavelength
>>> >range because I believe that the specifications should be accepted
>>> >by as many people as possible (although I do not have a strong
>>> >opinion to PX10 and PX20).
>>> >
>>> >Best regards,
>>> >Ken-Ichi
>>> >
>>> >At 2007/08/29 0:07 Frank Effenberger wrote:
>>> >> Dear All,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I have put together some slides that review the downstream wavelength issue,
>>> >> and put forward a solution that I think may have some common support.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Please give me your comments, and if you would like to support it, let me
>>> >> know that, also.
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Ken-Ichi Suzuki
NTT Access Network Service Systems Labs.
E-mail:kenyichi@ansl.ntt.co.jp
Tel:+81-43-211-3189/Fax:+81-43-211-8250