|
Reminder for today's TP2 call.
Proposed agenda
- Attendance
- Agenda
- Previous notes (from 9/9)
- Presentations
- TP2 test strategy, Tom
- Others?
- Plans/presentations for September meeting
- Overview of objectives, status of TP2 ad hoc
- TP2 test strategy
- Others?
- Next call, 9/23?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 11:49
AM
Subject: [10GMMF] Notes for TP2 call,
9/9/04
All - here are my notes for the 9/9 TP2 call. Please send comments
or corrections if needed.
Attendees (no order)
- Greg LeCheminant, Agilent
- Pavel Zivny, Tektronix
- Nick Weiner, Phyworks
- John Jaeger, BigBear
- Lew Aronson, Finisar
- Andre Van Schyndel, Bookham
- Yu Sun, Optium
- Piers Dawe, Agilent
- Tom Lindsay, ClariPhy
- Norm Swenson, ClariPhy
- Abhijit Shanbhag, Scintera
- Dubravko Babic, for ClariPhy
- Others?
Summary objective (repeated from before)
Present a proposal for TP2 signaling parameters and associated
conformance testing at the September Meeting. The work must consider and
provide tradeoff information among component cost, test cost, and power
penalties.
Reduction in power may be another outcome to consider.
Housekeeping
- Verbal agenda was approved.
- No comments or changes to the previous notes (from 9/2 call).
- Actions
Progress, technical discussions
- There were 2 presentations this week.
- Andre, Bookham (verbal)
- Internal study involved engineering, project planning, purchasing,
manufacturing.
- Bookham has concluded that, all things considered, there would be no
obvious cost benefits to them to change specs.
- Laser yield improvements could be offset by costs
of inventory complication, multiple test levels, etc.
- New design could take too long to recover NRE. ClariPhy position is
to not require new design but to use components from existing high
volume applications (such as OC-48).
- Expected high volumes would likely drive costs down to where
difference is small.
- If parts designed for other applications work and are used, they may
be running outside of their normal spec/test range. Supplier would have to
implement controls to assure component performance over the required
spectrum. (Tom note - component performance will be a function of LRM
specs; component specs are outside scope of standard).
- 2.1G/2.5G FP lasers are mainstream volume parts. 4.25G laser volumes
are still small.
- Norm, ClariPhy (see http://ieee802.org/3/aq/public/upload/swenson_090904.pdf)
- Summary - 2G laser showed small impact to dispersion penalty
compared to 10G laser results (~0.4 dB).
- Results not too surprising
- 2G lasers have more margin to their specs than 10G lasers do to
their specs.
- 2G lasers (OC-48) designed to run with higher ER's than proposed LRM
spec (higher ER imposes better performance on lasers).
- Questions
- How do penalties change with ER? (Tests were done with ER <= 4.7
dB).
- For laser-chip comparison, test eyes and penalties at same operating
currents, not OMA to eliminate fiber-coupling variable.
- Show eyes at slice input? Norm says that cluster diagrams are
possible, but full eyes at slicer input depend on design and may not be
possible. Should be possible to show sensitivity of clusters vs.
sampling point.
- Costs, markets and volumes
- Some expect LRM volumes could approach 1GBASE-SX. LRM seen as upgrade
path to 10G. Not a niche, 65M backbone links ready for upgrade.
- Length distribution? How much could be satisfied by 10GBASE-SR?
Isn't SR a "threat" to LRM, so shouldn't costs be comparable to SR?
- Costs reduce in volume, but low costs should help initiate volumes
(chicken vs. egg)..
- Action Norm - look into volume projections &
pressures
Future meetings
- New presentations?
- Plans/presentations for September meeting
- Next call
-
Date: Thurs, 9/16/04 (regular
day/time)
-
Time: 9:00 AM
-
Duration: 1:00 goal, 1:30 max
-
Number: 401-694-1515
-
Access code: 421721#
Tom Lindsay ClariPhy Communications tlindsay@ieee.orgphone: (425)
775-7013 cell: (206) 790-3240
|