Re: [8023-10GEPON] Define TDP values

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Although the TDP is a controversial value to be added to the 10GEPON standard, I have to agree with the previous committee ( 802.3ah) for assigning a TDP value; albeit not an apparent benefit, the TDP does set a reference value/point for determining transmitter quality which does impacts system performance. I agree with your assessment that the lack of high power reference transmitter to make a TDP measurement at this time is a problem. In the absence of such a reference transmitter/s, I think that the TDP values you have chosen are a good reference point to start with and I support you on this issue.
[Marek Hajduczenia] Agreed on that point. I think there is little left to be discussed apart from the numbers themselves.

I also think that the spreadsheet should reflect the impact of TDP on the systems' overall performance.
[Marek Hajduczenia] And it does. The IEEE formalism receiver sensitivity going to the PMD tables is influenced by the TDP parameter. Thus TDP impacts the system performance. I do not understand Your comment then.

From what I have been able to determine, the TDP value is subtracted from the IEEE_Rx_Stressed_Sensitivity_OMA to get IEEE_Rx_Sen_OMA, which does not readily translate into a system performance impact/limitation.
[Marek Hajduczenia] It does not limit the power budget per say but indicates how bad Your transmitter can be to meet the power budget. This was discussed I believe during the last meeting in Atlanta. Frank made this point pretty clear.

The system pass/fail calculation is based on Dispersion_Penalty <= ITU_Optical_Path_Penalty only, but should read (Dispersion_Penalty+TDP) <= ITU_Optical_Path_Penalty to insure all possible noise and penalties are accounted for.
[Marek Hajduczenia] The fail/pass condition is crude as for now and I am open to all suggestions covering extensions, modifications, upgrades etc. as long as they are justified and improve the model.

On Nov 21, 2007 6:34 AM, Hiroshi Hamano <hamano.hiroshi@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

Dear Madam and Sirs,

I am Hiroshi Hamano, Fujitsu Labs., participating in IEEE 802.3av 10GE-PON Task Force
meeting.

The Task Force chair has already announced that IEEE 802.3av 10GE-PON Draft 1.0 has
approved. You can find it in the IEEE task force Web site.

http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/index.html

But in the specification table in Clause 91, describing PHY layer, several columns
still remain as TBD, and continuous efforts are necessary to fill them up.

Transmitter and Dispersion Penalty, TDP, is one of such parameters which defines
transmitter features. To determine the parameter, it seems that the spread sheet
tool does not fully describe the parameter and it should be defined reflecting
the transmitter production results.

I have submitted a presentation material 3av_0711_hamano_1.pdf about TDP numbers,
which may be used in the table, estimated from the current 10G transmitter production
results. They are 1.5dB for Downstream EML, in OLT and 3.0dB for Upstream DML in ONU.

http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/3av_0711_hamano_1.pdf

Some system vendor engineers support my TDP numbers, but I would like to ask more
opinions widely for TDP specification and numbers to be adopted for 10GE-PON standard.
Especially opinions from optics experts and transceiver manufacturers are highly
appreciated.

To overcome PR30; 29dB channel insertion loss, a high-power transmitter should be
deployed. But such a high-power uncooled DML for Upstream, with minimum output power
of +4dBm, does not exist yet and may take years to be developed for mass-production,
and its performance estimation is not easy today. But I believe that at least equal
or better TDP feature, than current 10G DML with up to 0dBm power, should be available
to achieve the PR30 crucial power budget.

If you agree my TDP numbers, would you please show your approval for my material??
If you have any other suggestion, not only for numbers, but for definitions or
procedures, would you please show your preference??
Since the draft comment deadline is settled 17. Dec., I would like to have your
quick response by the end of November.
Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation.

Best regards,
Hiroshi Hamano
Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.

%% Glen Kramer <glen.kramer@TEKNOVUS.COM>
%% [8023-10GEPON] November 2007 meeting report
%% Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:24:10 -0800

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> All November meeting materials have been updated and uploaded to the web. Please see http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/index.html .
>
> Below is a short overview of the main achievements.
>
> 1) We accepted several important baseline proposals (refer to minutes in http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/3av_0711_minutes_unapproved.pdf)
> a) Adopted power budgets (see Motion 3)
> b) Selected remaining wavelength bands (see Motion 4)
> c) Selected FEC based on RS(255,223,8) (see Motion 7)
> d) Adopted MPCP-based handshake to allow adjustable laser on/off times (see Motion 10)
>
> 2) We approved the updated version (v2.1) of our Link Model spreadsheet (see Motion 9). The spreadsheet is located at http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/tools/3av_0711_linkmodel_v2_1.xls.
>
> 3) We adopted power budget and PMD names (see Motions 5 and 6)
> 4) We approved draft 1.0 (!)(see Motion 11)
> 5) We approved project timeline (see Motion 12)
>
> As a group exercise, on Thursday the task force has spent several hours commenting on draft 1.0 and resolving submitted comments. A total of 6 comments were submitted and reviewed. Reports on proposed responses and on accepted responses are published here:
>
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/3av_0711_responses_proposed.pdf
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/3av_0711_responses_accepted.pdf
>
> These changes will be incorporated in draft 1.1 after the January meeting. The editors continue to accept comments against D1.0 . Comment submission period ends December 17th, 2007 (a separate e-mail on this will follow).
>
> The following action items were identified for the January meeting:
>
> 1) Burst mode timing study (AGC, CDR) (contact Haim Ben-Amram)
> 2) Define TDP values (contact Hiroshi Hamano)
> 3) Jitter Budgets Reference Model (contact Vijay Pathak)
> 4) PRX30 Upstream power budget (contact Marek Hajduczenia)
> 5) Synchronization FSM (contact Frank Effenberger)
> 6) BER monitoring (contact Jeff Mandin)
> 7) Link fault Signaling (contact Jeff Mandin)
> 8) PCS diagnostic modes (contact Jeff Mandin)
> 9) Coexistence clause/annex (model description, layering diagram, dual-rate burst-mode receiver) (ad hoc leader wanted)
>
> The individuals noted as contacts agreed to coordinate the corresponding ad hoc activities. If you are interested in participating in any of these ad hoc groups, please contact corresponding coordinator.
>
> I would like to thank all TF members who attended the November meeting and made it a very productive event. Authors, please remember to check the uploaded presentations to make sure that the final (as presented) version was uploaded.
>
>
>
> Thanks you,
> Glen Kramer, P802.3av task force chair
>
>

---
-----------------------------------------
Hiroshi Hamano
Network Systems Labs., Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
Phone:+81-44-754-2641 Fax.+81-44-754-2640
E-mail:hamano.hiroshi@jp.fujitsu.com
-----------------------------------------