Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802.3ae_Serial] Jitter experiments




Juergen,

Thank you, that's valuable information.

Was the optical power near to the receiver sensitivity (with the sinusoidal
jitter turned off) or well above it?

Piers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rahn, Juergen (Juergen) [mailto:krahn@lucent.com]
> Sent: 11 December 2001 15:47
> To: 802. 3ae Serial PMD (E-mail)
> Subject: AW: [802.3ae_Serial] Jitter experiments
> 
> Hi,
> we have continued the measurements measuring the tolerance 
> for other error
> rates. What we found under the conditions already used was 
> that the limits
> where nearly identical as for 10 to -10- This confirms the errors we
> measured were related nearly complete to the SJ of a bit 
> above 0.4 UI (there
> was no significant random component visible) . This confirms 
> for me that
> looking purely on the  horizontal component this determines 
> the limits of
> the CDR under nominal conditions.
> It should be noted that this is a typical Lab environment 
> test with few
> different modules, BOL room temperature typical. I am sure 
> some margin is
> required to account for extreme temp drift, aging drift, and 
> supply voltage
> tolerance. This all is not specified by the third party 
> modules we used in
> this particular measurements. 
>  We are now trying to measure what this would mean in terms 
> of penalty to
> estimate what would be possible under real conditions. 
> Regards Juergen. 
> 
> 	----------
> 	Von:  Rahn, Juergen (Juergen)
> 	Gesendet:  Montag, 3. Dezember 2001 18:18
> 	An:  802. 3ae Serial PMD (E-mail)
> 	Betreff:  AW: [802.3ae_Serial] Jitter experiments
> 
> 
> 	Hi all,
> 	Sorry for not being able to participate on the last 
> call (I have a conflict
> 	tomorrow too). However I want to give some interim info 
> about tests on
> 	jitter we did. We used a SDH test set for jitter based 
> on the ITU
> 	definitions. So we measured the  broadband jitter 
> generation and tolerance
> 	in the frequency domain between 4 and 80Mhz. However as 
> concerning the
> 	tolerance it is not likely that a system is more 
> tolerant to jitter at
> 	frequencies even higher above the PLL border the 
> results may give some
> 	understanding of the underlying principles.
> 	We used commercial transponders as available on the 
> market. We measured the
> 	generation and tolerance w/o fiber to be free of 
> influences of fiber effects
> 	(Which may be traded off in the future) (TP2=TP3). The 
> Jitter generation of
> 	random jitter of the Transponder was at the measurement 
> limit and smaller
> 	than the jitter comming out of the Test set. (Which gives me the
> 	understanding that all this was clock jitter that will 
> be further reduced by
> 	the PLL an the parallel stream. There was no visible DJ 
> on the scope of the
> 	transmitted signal. Under these conditions we observed 
> a tolerance for a BER
> 	of about 10 to -10 of a bit above 0.4 UI P-P sinus 
> jitter, which was nearly
> 	equal to total jitter as stated before, nearly constant 
> for frequencies
> 	above PLL border frequency. We will repeat those tests 
> for other error rates
> 	to get an understanding how the theoretical bathtub may 
> look like (as we
> 	used commercial modules we have no way to shift the 
> sampling point through
> 	the eye) and get an understanding about the penalty 
> induced by which jitter
> 	amplitude. It should be noted that the penalty in the 
> measurement we did was
> 	real big, and so I do not believe at al that if we have 
> at 0.4 UI P-P (of
> 	whatever waveform the jitter follows) a penalty that 
> eats up a big part of
> 	the budget we see the nominal sensitivity at 0.35 UI. 
> (So this somewhat
> 	confirms the measurements from Intel) I will come up 
> with more dedicated
> 	results.
> 	Regards Juergen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		----------
> 		Von:  Lindsay, Tom [SMTP:tlindsay@stratoslightwave.com]
> 		Gesendet:  Samstag, 1. Dezember 2001 01:21
> 		An:  802. 3ae Serial PMD (E-mail)
> 		Betreff:  [802.3ae_Serial] Jitter experiments
> 
> 		This email is in response to my committment on 
> the 11/27/01 serial
> 	PMD con-call. This is still very crude, and I apologize 
> for lack of
> 	appropriate thought, but hopefully it can stimulate 
> more discussion.
> 		****
> 		 
> 		A major concern for 10G serial is 
> instrumentation error for doing
> 	jitter measurements. Steve's Buchheit's work clearly 
> demonstrates this.
> 	Ideally, instrumentation will improve sufficiently to 
> allay this concern,
> 	but none of us expect that to occur sufficiently in 
> advance of deployment.
> 	So if we are to keep the basic definition and method 
> for jitter measurement,
> 	then we require agreed upon means to compensate the 
> instrumentation.
> 		 
> 		With this in mind, I simply brainstormed 5 
> categories of test
> 	settings and measurements, with the hopes (dreams?) 
> that differences in
> 	their results can provide insight into how compensation 
> can be achieved.
> 		 
> 		1. Measuring instruments
> 		  Scope - eye patterns w/ crossing histograms
> 		  Error detector - jitter bathtub
> 		 
> 		2. Configurations (essentially the same used by Steve)
> 		  Pattern generator to measuring instrument
> 		  Pattern generator through E/O and O/E to 
> measuring instrument
> 		  Pattern generator through stress conditioning 
> and E/O and O/E to
> 	measuring instrument
> 		  Pattern generator through DUT and O/E to 
> measuring instrument
> 		 
> 		3. Test patterns
> 		  Pattern 1
> 		  Pattern 2
> 		  PRBS31
> 		  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 
> FD (isolated 1,
> 	isolated 0)
> 		  Repeating CC (square wave with 50% transition 
> density, same as
> 	average PRBS)
> 		 
> 		4. Signal variations
> 		  rise/fall time (at least 2 levels of slow/fast)
> 		  amplitude (at least 2 levels of low/high)
> 		 
> 		5. Stress conditioning mechanisms
> 		  high frequency ISI/DDJ
> 		  low frequency BLW/DDJ
> 		 
> 		At this point, I do not know if there is a path 
> through this that
> 	will lead anywhere (this is the apology again...). I 
> hope someone else can
> 	determine if there is really any value in here. The 
> 5-dimensional matrix
> 	results in a large number of test combinations - too 
> many. A Design of
> 	Experiments may be required to reduce the set. 
> Obviously more directed
> 	experiments can be defined with some risk of missing 
> key information.
> 		 
> 		Tom Lindsay 
> 		Stratos Lightwave, NW design center
> 		425/672-8035 x105
>