| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Ed, Thank you for the feedback. See some more discussion inline Marek From: Edwin Mallette [mailto:edwin.mallette@xxxxxxxxx] Marek, I think I'm reasonably aligned with the target objectives. My comments are in-line. Ed On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx> wrote: Dear colleagues, I would like to start discussion on the target objectives for the project. While I understand that we still need some more contributions on individual topics, including operator requirements, here is something that I think might be the feeling in the room we had at the last meeting in Chicago. So here is the first pass at the proposal objectives: 1) Define symmetric 29dB budget for 1G-EPON by adding downstream power budget and coupling it with PRX30 class specs already in place in 802.3av. We can decide then whether we keep PRX30 specs in Clause 77 or move then to Clause 60. My personal preference would be to do just that. [EJM] This one is definitely low-hanging fruit IMHO and is valuable given the varying optical characteristics of current shipping super-compliant optics (PX20+, PX20++, PX20-E). I'm not clear whether you're proposing to keep the PRX30 specs in Clause 77 or move them to Clause 60. It seems to make the most sense to muck with as little of the existing spec as possible and if that means to keep the PRX30 specs in Clause 77 (as makes sense to me) then I think we agree. [mh1020] My personal preference would be to keep 1G-EPON specs confined to Clause 60 and keep Clause 75 for 10G-EPON. It does seem like a lot of work, but all we do is move content of one table column to Clause 60, create a pointer back in Clause 75 and add new column for downstream for 1G-EPON. In either case, at this point of time what is important is to agree that this something that we all want to work on, which is what your opinion seems to be. I would certainly like to hear more opinions, if possible.
[EJM] I agree here as well; I can't imagine that this is not feasible, though I as you would also like additional feasibility contributions from optics vendors. [mh1020] I believe we heard one contribution with concerns on 33dB power budget feasibility for 10G symmetric and another one demonstrating that there was enough margin to do so. Probably the whole discussion will have to get down to better characterization of ODN and its components and trying to tighten margins, though we will have to be very careful to avoid producing a spec which would be too complex, too complicated or too expensive to implement. The strength of EPON was always in balancing cost versus technical complexity and I think we ought to follow that path closely. What do you think?
[EJM] As much I would like to keep everything completely passive and reach ~128 splits on a single fiber, I'm a pragmatist and accept that this is a reasonable approach which could enable operators at some point to go even higher than 128 splits. [mh1020] Do you think there are any additional limitations for PBEx devices which we need to take into account like compatibility with other wavelength band plans, target power budget boost etc.?
|