Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength
Hi Marek: You wrote: we
are not allowed to discuss market shares so probably it is better to leave
it at this ..
Correct: Which is why I focused
(no pun intended) on power consumption.
Once institutionalized, higher power
would be built in forever by requiring a narrow range of wavelengths.
A narrower wavelength requires higher
system power since it will require TE coolers, wavelength lockers
and attendant support circuitry.
Power has to be generated, conditioned,
backed up with UPS and then removed from a data center with AC.
For every watt you cut, several more
get cut via lower support requirements.
Best Regards
Maurice Reintjes
MindspeedTM
Hillsboro, Oregon,USA
Office Phone (503)-403-5370
Mobile (503)-701-0797
| Marek Hajduczenia <marek_haj@xxxxxxx>
11/06/2008 12:23 PM
|
Please respond to
marek_haj@xxxxxxx |
|
|
To
| STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength |
|
Hi Victor,
That is how Mike sees it. That
does not need to be necessarily how things work out in the market. It seems
to me that we are trying to guess which direction the market goes and I
think we all agree that is hardly predictable. Additionally, if I recall
right, we are not allowed to discuss market shares so probably it is better
to leave it at this ...
Regards
Marek
From: Victor Blake [mailto:victorblake@xxxxxxx]
Sent: quinta-feira, 6 de Novembro de 2008 13:13
To: marek_haj@xxxxxxx; STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength
To chmine in here – I’d
have to say that to me it sounds like the 1577 is the exception, not the
1590.
-Victor
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek_haj@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength
Hi Mike,
thanks for sharing Your point
of view with us.
Please confirm whether I understand
You right. You say that we should go with a wider window and carriers may
require vendors to actually build equipment which complies to a certain
part of this sub-band. In our case, we could hypothetically specify a downstream
band between 1574 and 1600 nm while e.g. a narrow band option between 1574
and 1580 nm could be required by some carriers to remain compliant with
their ODN. Is this what You're trying to relay in Your email ? Please confirm
Thank You
Marek
From: Mike Dudek [mailto:Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: quinta-feira, 6 de Novembro de 2008 10:22
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength
As an outsider to 10GEPON,
but member of IEEE 802.3 working group I’d like to suggest that the IEEE
standard should be working to provide the best solution for the new future
installs of the IEEE standard while paying attention to the existing infrastructure.
When you come to a point that you are having to drive the
cost of the new standard higher in order to be compatible with existing
infrastructure that may or may not exist in many applications I’d suggest
that the IEEE standard should work for the long term low cost solution,
while making it technically feasible for people with the existing infrastructure
to add additional requirements to make it compatible with their existing
infrastructure. That way you do not burden the long term cost of
new installs. EG if the low cost solution needs a Tx window
of xnm to x+30nm but for compatibility with a non-IEEE standard can only
be xnm +10nm, then the IEEE spec should be xnm to x+30nm and individual
vendors that are using the non-IEEE standard can impose the tighter (subset
spec) of xnm to xnm +10nm. (This obviously only applies if the PAR
and objectives have not made compatibility with the non-IEEE standard a
requirement.). Please note my example is for illustration only the
numbers in it are not meant to apply to this specific question.
From: Jim Farmer [mailto:Jim.Farmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:53 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength
My primary concern is that the
1577 nm downstream wavelength is inconsistent with use of the 1550 nm broadcast
(auxiliary) wavelength. The problem is that the two wavelengths are
too close together to allow us to build economical filters at the ONU to
separate the two wavelengths. It is a little easier with the 1590
nm wavelength, though it is still difficult. Originally I wanted
to specify the wavelength band as 1580 - 1600 nm as it was originally.
But I found that when I put in real filter characteristics, I still
had an extremely narrow transition region for the filter. So I accepted
that we would have to narrow the transmit window. I chose +/-3 nm
(1587 - 1593 nm) following the reasoning for PR(X)30. We are adding
cost to the laser, but at the OLT, which is not as cost sensitive as is
the ONU.
I also had to accept that the
auxiliary wavelength was limited to 1550 - 1555 nm, even though commercial
practice is to use wavelengths up to almost 1560 nm. People may complain
about this restriction, but I think in the end they will live with it.
Unfortunately I have not been
able to get quantitative information on the filter complexity - I would
like to see filter vendors jump in with comparative numbers. Some
vendors I spoke with gave me more pessimistic numbers than I used in preparing
the slides.
So the application is for anyone
who wants to use the 1550 nm broadcast wavelength. This is the only
way I see to possibly make use of 1550 nm overlay practical. And
it still demands a more difficult filter than we demand currently. But
presumably advances in the state-of-the-art will made the filter practical
at some point.
Thanks,
jim
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
From: Frank Chang [mailto:ychang@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength
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>>