Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I would like to better understand the
position of those advocating a limit of PIE-D in the range of 3.8-4.0 for the
TP-3 stressor selection. I believe we can make progress on the reflector
versus taking up weekly TP-3 call So far, as I understand the
arguments for a PIE-D of 3.8-4.0, they are: 1)
Real-world fiber will show dynamic variation
in IPR that will degrade equalizer performance compared to that measured with a
static TP-3 test, which somehow leads to a cliff in real-world performance if
we set the PIE-D value too high in the TP-3 stress test 2)
Cost-effective and power-efficient
EDC chips can be produced that achieve performance in this range Argument (1) would seem to push for
higher performance requirements in the static TP-3 test, since margin must be
built into the static test to allow for unmodeled dynamic impairments. Argument (2) has been put forward as
though there is some fundamental limitation that prevents cost-effective and
power-efficient EDC chips from being produced that can equalize PIE-D values
higher than 4.0 dB. I am very interested in learning more about the
theoretical or experimental basis for concluding that cost-effective,
power-efficient EDC chips cannot perform beyond the 3.8-4.0 dB range that has
been proposed as a performance metric. Until recently, the committee has focused
on quantitative analysis to determine performance requirements for EDC based on
theoretical models and measured data of optical fiber, with an implicit, if not
explicit, goal of 99% coverage of 300m OM-1 fibers. Lately, there has
been a shift away from considering the percentage of the installed base that
can be covered to setting PIE-D objectives independently of coverage
requirements. I do not understand the significance of PIE-D requirements
if they are not put in the context of the percentage of the installed base that
the PIE-D corresponds to. Without such context, the numbers can be
arbitrarily chosen without any real-world significance. Thanks to any who can help me better
understand the arguments for setting PIE-D limits to such a low value compared
to that required to achieve 99% coverage. |