Hi Ali,
The BW requirements of PMD alternatives under consideration, including NRZ, are accurately reflected in the presented optical specifications.
E/O device requirements for analog NRZ are well understood, and there is little danger of a false answer. However, if you are concerned, a detailed contribution from you on the subject would be welcome.
Chris
From: Ali Ghiasi [mailto:aghiasi@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:51 PM
To: Chris Cole
Cc: STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-400G] FW: Few questions on cole_02_0814_smf & clarification on updates from cole_3bs_01a_0714
Chris
You have done a nice qualitative analysis comparing NRZ with PAM and DMT. However this type of analysis always converges to NRZ, which require high BW components with BW>Baudrate/2.
One key impairment is the electrical driver to E/O device where the BW roll off is not gradual and smooth, often resonances are observed with significant group delay distortion. This level of details need to included in the analysis to determine how does the different signaling compare, otherwise the answer falsely might be NRZ!
On Aug 19, 2014, at 9:23 PM, Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Matt,
Thank you for the questions and comments. Please see detailed responses inserted in the text of your email below.
More generally, the PMD specifications presented on today’s SMF Ad Hoc call are idealized and scrupulously apples-to-apples. As we quantify more penalties, the specifications will get harder not easier. Before fractions of a dB are challenged piecemeal, we should first have a comprehensive set of understood penalties and design limitations, which can then be looked at in total. A detailed contribution from you moving us in this direction would be welcome.
Chris
From: Matt Traverso (mattrave) [mailto:mattrave@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:12 AM
To: Chris Cole
Cc: STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Marco Mazzini (mmazzini)
Subject: Few questions on cole_02_0814_smf & clarification on updates from cole_3bs_01a_0714
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the contributions. You may have addressed some of these questions at the microphone (on cole_3bs_01a_0714) or verbally, yet as someone who has been unable to attend the calls/meetings, I’d appreciate your patience in addressing the questions.
1) Quantization (*) noise: I count three penalties in your draft budget containing quantization noise. I am concerned that you are overestimating by putting it into three line items. (a) modulation penalty <adding 0.2dB for “exact levels”>; (b) TDP- on slide 4 of cole_02_0814_smf, you indicate that TDP includes quantization <unclear constituent pieces of TDP>; (c) TIA & Quantization penalties on the RX. These are all reasonable sources of penalty to further investigate, yet I’m concerned that your comparison table probably mixes some cells which are well known with others that have more rigorous experimental basis such that the reader may inadvertently draw conclusions which are not beneficial for the industry. In particular, what is the basis of the RX Quantization penalty? Do you have a reference?
*** The total of all quantization related penalties in the TX and RX specifications is ~1 dB which is not an overestimation.
RX quantization and other penalties were calculated through simulations. Quantization effects are well understood and extensively published on.Estimating this penalty is complicated by dependence on relative contribution of all other noise sources. We are open to refining it, although any update is likely to be small.
2) FEC Coding Gain on KP4 vs. KR4: (this refers to cole_3bs_01a_0714): I believe you used the 1e-15 input BER for the KP4 and the 1e-12 input BER for KR4 (leveraging zhai_400_01_0713). Also, I noted on on slide 8, you took a 0.5dB OMA relaxation to accommodate a ~3% rate increase in KP4 vs. KR4 – this seems excessive. I didn’t notice KR4 mentioned in cole_02_0814_smf, is there a reason that you are selecting KP vs. KR?
*** All FEC gains are referenced to BER = 1e-12 so that a comparison can be made to LR4.
The penalty in the presentation for 3% KP4 FEC overhead is not 0.5dB but 0.064dB (rounded to nearest 1/10 of a dB). It is equally applied to all PMDs.
KP4 was used because that was proposed in bhat_3bs_01a_0714, of which you are a supporter, and is minimum required for higher order modulation PMDs. KR4 was used for some 50Gb/s lane PMD alternatives in the July presentation, but changed to KP4 to enable a fair comparison. KP4 could not be used for DMT because it requires a stronger FEC, as was noted during the SMF Ad Hoc call.
3) TDP: On slide 8 of cole_3bs_01a_0714, you have a 2.0 dB penalty for PAM4 2x λs DML KP4 FEC, yet on slide 5 of cole_02_0814_smf, this has shifted to a 1.5dB penalty. Why did the TDP change? Conversely, the “4x100G KP4 FEC PAM4 MOD” column in your ad hoc preso has 2.5dB versus a 2dB penalty in the July presentation – why the change? Any references you can point to? (seems strange that the 8x got easier yet the 4x got harder?) As you can tell from mazzini_01a_0814_smf, we are trying to understand the behavior & best characterize penalties.
*** Generally, we have refined our analysis, and will continue to refine our analysis, so numbers changed and will change. In this iteration, we added jitter to 50G and 100G alternatives, and quantization to latter.
Specifically, 50Gb/s NRZ TDP decreased because of use of stronger FEC (KP4 in Aug. vs. KR4 FEC in July). 100Gb/s PAM-4 TDP increased (“4x got harder”) because of use of a weaker FEC (KP4 in Aug. vs. BCH FEC in July). TDP decreases as pre-FEC operating BER increases because BER curves converge. The comment that “8x got easier” is incorrect; TDP for one 8x increased, for one 8x stayed the same, and for one 8x decreased. Coincidently,although arrived at differently, the 2.5dB TDP for 100G PAM-4 in today’s SMD Ad Hoc presentation happens to be the same as in bhat_3bs_01a_0714, which you are supporting. The suggestion of bias is unfortunate.
Marco’s presentation is great. I appreciate his accuracy in describing the measurement environment and its limitations, and the fidelity of the data. Please support this effort so that we can better understand and quantify all penalties and design limitations.
4) FEC Optical Gain: Based on verbal conversations with IC folks, I do not believe the halving of NCG (page 6, row “FEC Optical Gain v. 1e-12 BER”cole_02_0814_smf) is appropriate. I am trying to find a better approximation. If you have a good reference (beyond the generic intensity vs. E-field) I’d appreciate seeing it.
*** A factor of approximately half is appropriate for going from electrical to optical domain. Exact values have been extensively discussed in 802.3bm, for example on the reflector with the subject line: “[802.3_100GNGOPTX] FEC and error ratios.”
Detailed derivations can be found in:
We have used 2.6dB and 3.2dB as the optical gain for KR4 and KP4, respectively, as these have been generally accepted as correct. We are open to refining these gains, but any update is likely to be small.
5) OMA Eye v. EyeSNR: Suggestion that you move to using Eye SNR (see slide 7 of mazzini_01a_0814_smf). As we are moving into links that leverage FEC/DSP, I think it is appropriate that we adopt SNR terminology rather than eye openings.
*** Since 802.3bs is chartered with writing optical specifications and many participants have an optics background, using optics terminology is the most helpful in promoting a broader understanding of different proposals. Many participants have a long history of using optics terminology for FEC, and more recently DSP, in telecom and ITU-T applications. Optics terminology was used to include FEC in 802.3bm 100GBASE-SR4 specifications, so we have a clear example of how to do this successfully in the IEEE.
thanks
--matt traverso