[STDS-802-3-400G] FW: Comparison of SMF experimental data

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

In the spirt of transparency here is the actual spreadsheet I put together last week to collect all of the data.

If there are any errors or omissions I will gladly address them.

Gary

From: 高井厚志 <atsushi.takai@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 5:58 PM
To: 高井厚志 <atsushi.takai@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gary Nicholl <gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx>, "STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Comparison of SMF experimental data

Gary

Thanks.

My comments

(1) Your comment for 10km NRZ in page 6 should be changed.
The sensitivity is specified with reasonable margin using obtained data.
We specified the sensitivity of -8.8dBm.
Do you think NRZ need more margin?

(2) You should list my data of -17.6dBm given in takai_3bs_01_0515.
Then the margin you listed will be 2.8dB.

The margin for sensitivity is depends on transmission scheme.

PAM4 may need more margin than NRZ.

Atsushi Takai

Oclaro Japan, Inc

From: Gary Nicholl (gnicholl) [mailto:gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:43 AM
To: STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-3-400G] Comparison of SMF experimental data

While preparing for the Pittsburg meeting last week, I became very frustrated in trying to compare all of the experimental data presented in support of the differing SMF proposals.

The results were often presented using different receiver parameters (average power, outer eye OMA, inner eye OMA, etc) and with different receiver implementations/specifications.

This made it extremely difficult to easily compare the different experimental results.

I decided to take all of the experimental data presented in the task force, capture it in a single spreadsheet, and convert everything to inner eye OMA sensitivity (and at a 2e-4 BER) to make it easier to compare.

As a second step I applied a correction factor to all of the measurement data (where possible) to enable a comparison based on a common set of receiver specifications that are projected to be available in realizable products for 25Gbaud and 50Gbaud systems in the time frame of the 802.3bs project.

I shared this analysis with several people yesterday and they suggested it would be worthwhile sharing it with the task force.

As a result I captured my analysis in the attached presentation.

Gary