Hi Glen: Thank you for your monitoring
and clarification.
Since we can talk about wide market
potential as one of the criterion, then this should be added.
Best Regards
Maurice Reintjes
MindspeedTM
Hillsboro, Oregon,USA
Office Phone (503)-403-5370
Mobile (503)-701-0797
Glen Kramer <glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
11/06/2008 02:16 PM
Please respond to
Glen Kramer <glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
Re: [8023-10GEPON] FW: Downstream wavelength
All,
I am monitoring the discussion on the reflector and have found no violations
of the guidelines on reflector usage policy. You may refresh your
knowledge of these guidelines by reviewing the following documents:
2) Section 5.3.10 "Legal compliance and other issues" in the
IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual (http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sb-om.pdf)
There were many good arguments presented in the ongoing wavelength plan
discussion. We should strive to close the wavelength issue at the meeting
next week, so I would like to encourage more task force members to voice
their opinion and present technical arguments now and not wait till the
meeting.
________________________________________
From: Maurice Reintjes [mailto:maurice.reintjes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:48 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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
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 us!
ing 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>
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>>