| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear colleagues, First and foremost, I would like to deliver my wishes of Happy New Year 2012 for all colleagues and members of this project. This email serves also as a reminder to submit request for time slot for presentations at the upcoming interim meeting in Newport Beach, CA, USA. If you plan to attend the meeting and have not yet registered, please follow this link: http://www.ieee802.org/3/interims/index.html for the information on location, hotel, and registration. The list of areas of interest is listed in the previous email (see below). Please submit the request for presentation time via email (Reply To) by 13th of January. Presentation should be submitted by 17th of January, following the guidelines listed at http://www.ieee802.org/3/EXTND_EPON/public/presentproc.html Regards and hope to you see in two weeks’ time Marek Hajduczenia, PhD Chair, Extended EPON Study Group, http://www.ieee802.org/3/EXTND_EPON/ From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx] Dear colleagues, We have had a very successful meeting in Atlanta two weeks ago and I would like to take this opportunity to thank once again everyone involved in these two long days of working on documentation, proposed responses to 5 Critters, Objectives and PAR. Now, with that part of our work over, it is time to start looking into organization of the time we have been allocated at the upcoming F2F meeting in January 2012. You may have heard that our motion to form the Extended EPON Task Force will not enter into 802 EC agenda up to shortly before March 2012 plenary meeting, which means that both in January 2012 and March 2012 we will be meeting as a Study Group. Our first official Task Force meeting will take place then only in May 2012. However, I would like us to take full advantage of the time we have and progress work for the future Task Force as much as possible during these upcoming two meetings. For this purpose, I would like to make call for contributions in the following areas: 1. Proposal(s) to address the following sub-objective: “Provide physical layer specifications for 1G-EPON supporting a downstream channel insertion loss of 29dB, compatible with PR(X)30 upstream channel insertion loss;”, including among the others: a. PMD specifications for ONU b. PMD specification for OLT c. Analysis of coexistence between new PMD and 10G-EPON PMDs (confirmation that such coexistence is guaranteed) 2. Proposal(s) to address the following set of questions regarding the second set of sub-objectives i.e. “Provide physical layer specifications for 1G-EPON supporting a split ratio of at least 1:64 at a distance of at least 20 km; for 10G-EPON, supporting a split ratio of at least 1:64 at a distance of at least 20 km;” a. Target power budget value (32dB? 35dB? More?) b. Method to achieve such extended power budget: PMD or PBEx 3. PBEx architecture and interface specification proposals: a. PBEx in 802.3 and 802.1 Ethernet architecture of internetworked devices b. Parameter specification for individual interfaces c. Managed vs unmanaged PBEx solutions d. Impact on EPON MPCP and PCS specifications (timing requirements, jitter etc.) 4. 10G-EPON FEC gain in upstream: demonstration of practical measurement results for existing devices to give us a better idea on the power budget margin provided by the FEC adopted by 10G-EPON in 802.3av 5. Target distance / split ratios of interest for operators, together with suggestions of scenarios for exemplary power budgets to be placed in an informative annex (if such an annex is developed, depending on the decision of the future Task Force) 6. (low priority) Organization of draft When making proposals, especially for point 2, please bear in mind the other objectives we have approved i.e. “Maintain coexistence among 1G-EPON and 10G-EPON (i.e. support the same loss budget classes for 1G-EPON and 10G-EPON).” and “Changes to be confined to the PMD layer; PCS and MPCP are to be reused as is.”, which will be used in the future by the Task Force to eliminate any proposals which suggest e.g. different loss budgets for 1G-EPON and 10G-EPON, or changes to EPON MAC, as violating the approved objectives of the project. In terms of item number 3 – given that PBEx is a new device concept, I anticipate the need to provide a new set of interface parameters, depending on the proposed device architecture, its mode of operation etc. I hope that the proposals suggesting specific PBEx architectures would take that into consideration, listing physical layer parameters which need to be standardized to guarantee interoperability between individual devices i.e. PBEx and OLT and PBEx and ONU. Please note that because of the status of our Study Group, we will not be able to make selection of technical proposals, select baselines for future Task Force, develop draft or take motions binding for the future Task Force. We should, however, use the time of the following two F2F meetings to build consensus around specific solutions, collect material for the future Task Force’s consideration and organize it in the best way possible. Thank you for your consideration and respective contributions Marek Hajduczenia, PhD Chair, Extended EPON Study Group, http://www.ieee802.org/3/EXTND_EPON/ |