I just reviewed this thread, and my
interpretation to Jim’s slides is that-
1) The argument is not for PR(X)30 as cooled TX is assumed because of
tight power budget, so narrower 1577nm band considered feasible for PR(X)30.
2) For PR10/20, possibly uncooled optical sources are assumed, so bring
about the argument that larger wavelength band, such as wider 1590nm band, is
only feasible.
To satisfy this argument, basically call
for the group to switch back to the wavelength plan originally specified in
D2.0. So actually we are re-visiting the argument the group made during the
baseline stage a year ago.
Jim- Can you confirm this is what you are
looking for?
As it is clear the PR(X)30 will be assumed
mainstream deployment which requires co-existence with installed 1G version, can
anybody elaborate the scenarios on how PR10/20 going to be deployed? My
question is weather PR10/20 scenarios has to use cooled or semi-cooled optical
source?
]
thanks
Frank C.
From: Frank
Effenberger [mailto:feffenberger@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008
3:22 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW:
Downstream wavelength
To pile onto this thread, I have a
question regarding Jim Farmer’s most recent presentation and
Maurice’s support of it:
Did you notice that Jim’s
presentation is asking to change the PR10/20 OLT transmitter wavelength range
to 1587 to 1593nm?
(At least, that is how I read it, but I
should say that the exact numbers are not clear.)
Perhaps Jim can clarify exactly what he is
asking for… that would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Frank E>
From: Marek
Hajduczenia [mailto:marek_haj@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008
6:12 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW:
Downstream wavelength
Hi Maurice,
Just following the
arguments You used in Your email: does that mean that You see PR(X)20 OLT
transmitters as uncooled devices? Are the power levels we are targeting
achievable using uncooled optics? As far as I understand, cooling is necessary
not only to keep the central wavelength within the predefined range but also
assure higher output power level. Can You comment on this?
Regards
Marek
From: Maurice Reintjes
[mailto:maurice.reintjes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: quarta-feira, 5 de Novembro
de 2008 12:49
To:
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW:
Downstream wavelength
Hi Victor: I appreciate your comments, as they
describe the existing conditions in the end solution space.
To that end I support your comments, and position which is
also advocated by Jim Farmer.
My rational is that optical sources do not need to be so
expensive and tightly temperature controlled when you can use the
1580-1600nm band,
and when you remove the tight wavelength requirement, optical
, sources get cheaper, and thus increase the chances of wide
acceptance as was the case of 1GEPON, which uses low-cost
optics.
Allowing a wider wavelength range also consumes less power,
and can be viewed as being more "green"; something which was not
a direct component to the initial PAR, but should be a
factor that all engineers take in to account when developing a new standard.
Best Regards
Maurice Reintjes
MindspeedTM
Hillsboro, Oregon,USA
Office Phone (503)-403-5370
Mobile (503)-701-0797
|
Victor Blake <victorblake@xxxxxxx>
11/04/2008
06:21 PM
|
Please respond
to
Victor Blake <victorblake@xxxxxxx>
|
|
|
To
|
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength
|
|
Jim,
As an early
supporter of 10GigEPON (starting at the CFI) I am writing to the task force to
express my support for your proposal. I believe that the 1580-1600nm wavelength
would be more appropriate for use in the North American and in particular US
MSO market. This market is composed of operators have existing wavelengths in
use of their plant. Some already have substantial EPON deployments.
As you have pointed
out, 1577 (1574-1580nm) could be substantial problem for MSOs. Having the
second wavelength available for this market need would help to avoid a conflict
between 10GigEPON and broadcast video – to which 10GigEPON would surely
loose out. If the task force were to elect to keep 1590nm out of the plan, they
would be spelling out certain disaster for 10GigEPON as we know specifically of
the efforts to use 1590nm for current proposals for a next generation GPON
solution. The result of keeping 1590nm out of 10GigEPON would be to force the
MSO industry to GPON. I’ll just assume that is not the goal of the
10GigEPON Task Force, but it nevertheless would be the most likely outcome.
In fact it is no
surprise to find that the GPON vendors are the ones most supportive of this
proposed change.
I’ve
communicated with a number of major US MSOs about this issue. The three I have
directly received responses from all support 1590nm and wish to continue to see
it as their first choice. Although these organizations are not directly
represented in the IEEE today, they have from time to time participated in the
past, and are certainly the largest EPON and 10GigEPON market in North America currently. For this reason, I urge the task
force members to reach out to the MSO community and solicit their opinions if
you do not already know where they stand.
Victor Blake
Independent
Consultant
From:
Jim Farmer [mailto:Jim.Farmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: sábado, 1 de Novembro de 2008 15:59
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength
We request to make the attached presentation during the 10GEPON meeting
in Dallas.
We remain concerned over the decision to drop the 1590 nm downstream band
from the plan, for reasons shown in the attached. Note that there are
notes that go with most of the slides. You can see them by going to
View|Notes Page
Thanks,
Alan Brown
Jim Farmer
Jim Farmer, K4BSE
Chief Network Architect,
Enablence Technology
FTTx Networks Division.
1075 Windward Ridge Parkway
Alpharetta, GA 30005 USA
678-339-1045
678-640-0860 (cell)
jim.farmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.enablence.com
<<FilterCompare.ppt>>