Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
In GPON ONU Triplexer, I think that the 1.5Gb/s DFB laser cost is 2-3 times
higher than 2.5G APD cost.
David, could you confirm it?
Regards
Hao
-----Original Message-----
From: Hiroshi HAMANO [mailto:hamano.hiroshi@JP.FUJITSU.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:01 AM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
Dear Dr.Li and Dr.Hajduczenia,
Thank you for discussing APD-ROSA cost assumptions. I admit that current
APD-ROSA costs 2 times of PIN-ROSA, and it is important to see how it will
be reduced in the future volume production.
But I think people are too much micro-focusing on ROSA cost.
ROSA is only one of the component in the ONU, and it does not indicate the
ONU cost or total optics cost.
U/S TX is the major cost contributor for ONU and also the total optics.
And considering the total cost, APD@ONU is always cost effective up to 16
splits, as I have shown in my presentation 3av_0707_hamano_2.pdf.
Even at 32 splits the cost difference is only 10-15%, and if you assume the
overall system, it will be much smaller.
Some PIN group people always stress D/S cost only to give the impression
that APD@ONU is 2-times expensive, but it is not true.
APD-ROSA costs 2-times, but APD@ONU does not.
D/S cost discussion only is not fair and misleading.
Best regards,
Hiroshi Hamano
%% "Hajduczenia, Marek" <marek.hajduczenia@SIEMENS.COM> %% Re:
[8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal %% Wed, 5 Sep 2007 07:12:53
+0100
> Dear David,
> Thank Yout for the answer.
> We have one vote in favour of the APD price reduction after the beginning
of the 10GEPON deployment. In Your opinion, the price difference can be as
low/high as 210 - 220% (APD vs. PIN). Are there any other cost components
which need to ba taken into account when considering APD based ONU ?
> Regards
>
>
> Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
> NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - R Rua Irm竢s 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: David Li [mailto:dli@LIGENTPHOTONICS.COM]
> Sent: ter艨-feira, 4 de Setembro de 2007 17:14
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
>
> Marek,
>
> In the past, the APD/TIA price is about 5X to 10X of the PIN/TIA price
> for the 1.25G and 2.5G applications.
>
> With the fast deployment of the GPON systems, the price of the APD/TIA
> price has dropped to about 2X of the PIN/TIA now at 2.5Gbps. I think
> the 10G APD/TIA will follow the same trend.
>
> As the circuit complexity you mentioned in your eralier email, the
> charge pump for the APD/TIA is about 15% to 30% of the 2.5G PIN/TIA
> price depending on the implementing approaches (maybe only about 5% of
> the 10G PIN/TIA). The price of the charge pump will not be changed with
the data rate.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
> David Li, Ph.D.
> Ligent Photonics, Inc.
> 2701 Dukane Dr., Suite 102
> St. Charles, IL 60174
> Phone 630-513-7226 ext 15
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hajduczenia, Marek" <marek.hajduczenia@SIEMENS.COM>
> To: <STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] PIN-PD D/S power budget proposal
>
>
> > Dear Justin,
> > Thank You for the feedback.
> > The question then remains: how trustworthy are the cost evolution
> > curves,
> which claim APD ~ PIN cost with sufficient production volumes? I must
> say that we (I mean people who do not opt for any particular solution
> as for the
> moment) are subject to conflicting confirmation - the APD proponents
> say the cost will come down rapidly and each PIN levels, the opponents
> say it is not possible. In the end of the day, I have to rely on
> someone's data since I do not have first-hand information on this
> particular issue. In this situation I do not know how to chose which
> camp to support and how to cast a vote if there happens to be any motion
on the floor.
> > I hope we can clarify the issue during the September meeting - we
> > will
> have some time for discussion on power budget.
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
> > NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A., Portugal - R Rua Irm竢s 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: Justin Abbott [mailto:jabbott@gennum.com]
> > Sent: ter艨-feira, 4 de Setembro de 2007 16:30
> > To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org; Hajduczenia, Marek
> > Subject: 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 Irm竢s 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
>
>
---
---------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------