Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44
Dear Dr. Galambos,
As indicated in 3av_0809_kozaki_2.pdf, RJ numbers in the Tables are
not rms, but DJ aligned value to calculate TJ. Even though RJ does
not have the peak-jitter nature, I still think DJ, RJ, and TJ numbers
should all be described in UIp-p.
Best regards,
Hiroshi Hamano
Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
%% Tibi Galambos <Tibi_Galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
%% [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44
%% Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:49:52 +0300
>
> The proposal for comment #44 is to remove "p-p" from the headers
> of tables 75C-1 and 75C-2 altogether. This is not correct.
>
> The "p-p" attribute has to be removed from the TJ and RJ columns
> only. The headers of both tables have to look as follows:
>
> Reference point DJ (UI p-p) RJ (UI ) TJ (UI )
>
>
> Justification:
>
> The jitter budget is built upon the following assumptions:
> a. Jitter is represented assuming the DJ to have an equi-probable
> bimodal distribution and RJ to be Gausian.
> b. All sources of random jitter are assumed independent therefore
> RJ rms values can be added by squares.
> c. All sources of DJ are assumed to be correlated (this is a worst
> case assumption, meaning that all DJ components will be either together
> at max value or together at min value, with equal probability for the
> min and the max to occur)
> Under these assumptions, RJ and TJ are defined @ BER while DJ is
> defined by it's peak to peak value and then the following calculation
> holds:
> TJ (@ BER) = DJ p-p + RJ (@ BER)
>
>
>
>
> Tibi Galambos
> Principal Engineer AFE (Analog Front-End)
> FTTH BU
> PMC-Sierra
> Tel: +972-9-9628000 Ext. 473
> Email: tibi_galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:itibi_galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
-----------------------------------------
Hiroshi Hamano
Network Systems Labs., Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
Phone:+81-44-754-2641 Fax.+81-44-754-2640
E-mail:hamano.hiroshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------