Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
Good Day Marek,
It is quite correct that the 1G standard was based on APD's in the ONU,
however, before deciding to follow suit I think it's very important that we
consider the cost issues that also plague the 1G module makers.
I think everyone can agree that an APD OUN leads to a relatively expensive
ONU, and in the 1G case, although APD cost have come down with volume, so
have ONU prices. Thus, even with APD cost reductions, module makers
continue to struggle with the high cost of an APD ONU.
_______________________________________
Justin Abbott
Product Manager
Gennum Corporation
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ph (613) 270-0458 x2783
Cell (613) 697-2066
_______________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Hajduczenia, Marek [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@siemens.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:59 AM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
Dear Hao,
I would tend to agree with Your point of view. The only disadvantage of APD
based ONU that still holds at the moment is the related cost. However, if I
recall right, the previous 1G standard was also based on sensitivity figures
for APDs rather than PINs in ONUs (OLTs still use APDs?) and I was wondering
whether we cannot go the same way. The PIN sensitivity increase (as You
described in the previous email - thank You for that, it was very elaborate)
and the technological developments You mentioned may eventually allow for
replacement of the APDs with PINs. However, one thing is sure - if the
prices are going to go down along with the ramp up in the production volume,
what are the other viable arguments of not having APD based ONUs? From what
I recall the launch powers are much lower, OLT transmitters probably do not
need cooling (except for PR30) making them more robust. The downside is the
more complicated electronics for ONU Rx but that was quoted as minor cost
factor, wi!
th existing solutions and board designs which can be reused.
Can anybody from the PIN-team comment on that ?
Thank You
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: Hao Feng [mailto:h.feng@EUDYNA.COM]
Sent: segunda-feira, 3 de Setembro de 2007 23:39
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
Hotta san
I mean mostly the high launch power related issues when PIN is used in
ONU. At end of budget meeting in SF, we re-listed the technical issues for
both EDFA/PIN and EML/APD solutions. The APD solution left only one issue on
cost for ONU. But PIN/EDFA solution has still several issues not to be
clear. My point is we should move one solution forward, which solution has
the less technical risk. The cost issue should be left for future. The cost
problem may be solved when the volume to go up as GPON case. Certainly, if
some evolution on "low cost Rx" happens in future, it could replace the
higher cost part without any problems.
Best regards
Hao
-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshifumi Hotta [mailto:Hotta.Yoshifumi@eb.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp]
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 12:49 AM
To: Hao Feng
Cc: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
Dear Mr. Feng
I'm sorry but I cannot fully understand what is your questions are.
Basically, I think Suzuki and his supporters had answered each problem which
is pointed out in the meeting. If you think there is " many remained
thchnical concerns ", we are are very appreaciated to discuss in the next
Seoul meeting.
From our point of view, all technical concerns for PIN based ONU are solved
by experimental data and technical study. Also, There is no doubt for cost
advantage of PIN based ONU's.
It seems for me some APD supporter are opposing PIN based ONU for reason
that "PIN supporters proposal is doubtful". I think this kind of arguments
takes us nowhere.
Sencerely,
--
Yoshifumi Hotta
Mitsubishi Electric R&D center
> Hotta san
> There are a lot of information in the attached material to have been
> presented on SF conference (3av_0707_suzuki_1.pdf). The
> 3av_0707_hamano_2.pdf has answered your concerns on SF conference,
> such as high power EML issues. Could you focus on answering the many
> remained technical concerns caused by high launch power? The
> 3av_0707_hamano_2.pdf has answered all of questions about using APD
solution.
>
> Best regards
> Hao Feng
> Eudyna Devices USA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshifumi Hotta
> [mailto:Hotta.Yoshifumi@EB.MITSUBISHIELECTRIC.CO.JP]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:32 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
>
> All,
>
> In the last meeting, Suzuki had presentaion for PIN@ONU.
> In discussion, because OLT max launch power is such high as +13dBm, we
> had some questions about eye-safety from the floor.
>
> In the attached presentation, we clarify safety requirements which we
> should support, and propose new power budget. We believe this one
> could support both eye-safety and B++ with PIN-PD in the downstream
direction.
>
> Having discussions on the reflector is appreciated, also if you would
> like to support this presentation, please let me know.
>
> Sincerely,
> --
> Yoshifumi Hotta
> Mitsubishi Electric R&D center