Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi David, Pete, I have put a few slides together to get a discussion going. Just waiting for review and approval. Thanks, Mark From: David Lewis [mailto:David.Lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Mark, A couple of comments on your message: 1.
In previous NRZ SMF MPIs there was no explicit MPI penalty, just a small reflection penalty derived from the IEEE link spreadsheet
model. That reflection penalty only considered the reflectance of the Tx and Rx at maximum channel insertion loss. We are talking about it now because of new knowledge gained when considering PAM4 PMDs, where MPI is a critical impairment that needs to be
well controlled. As shown by Jonathan’s ad hoc presentation in king_01_25gsmf_051017, MPI is also a penalty for NRZ links and can be significant for foreseeable numbers of connectors. 2.
I think the concern for MPI is at maximum loss, rather than minimum, because that is where the penalty affects the overall
link budget. Jonathan’s calculations have the maximum insertion loss lumped just before the receiver. 3.
For both 25GBASE-LR and -ER, we have a transmitter reflectance of -12 dB and a receiver reflectance of -26 dB. This is
in line with other NRZ serial SMF PMDs, but is not what is assumed for any of the PAM4 PMDs. All of those have -26 dB at both ends in order to control the MPI penalty. So, in addition to considering the link budget with N x -35 dB reflectances in the channel, I think we should consider requiring a
-26 dB reflectance at the transmitter. In practice this would mean having fiber stubs in the Tx and Rx ferrules and would rule out free-space designs with an air gap between the laser and the output fiber. If transceiver makers want to take keep the -12 dB Tx reflectance, we will need to add an additional MPI penalty into the -LR and
-ER power budgets. I think it’s appropriate to specify maximum discrete reflectance limits using a table, similar to the one below, copied from 802.3bs D3.1. David
From: Mark Kimber
[mailto:MKimber@xxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Peter, I am on business travel at the minute so will be difficult by Wednesday. I have Jonathan’s spreadsheet downloaded but have used it in anger yet so that might
need a couple of attempts to get right. What I could do is outline potential use cases for discussion so we can get that agreed to start with. So how many reflections, etc. Thanks, Mark From: Peter Jones (petejone) [mailto:petejone@xxxxxxxxx]
Mark, This feels like an offer to put together a presentation. Can you have something ready for Wednesday? Regards Peter _______________________________________________
Peter Jones Cisco Systems
Principal Engineer 560 McCarthy Blvd. Campus Switching S/W Milpitas, CA, 95035 USA
Wrk: +1 408 525 6952 Mob: +1 408 315 8024
Email: petejone at cisco.com
About.me:
about.me/petergjones _____________________________________________ From: Mark Kimber
[mailto:MKimber@xxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Peter, My view is we should agree how many connector with appropriate return loss and also the loss and its’ placement in the link. Run some MPI sims and come up
with a number. For instance, it would be reasonable to consider 2, 4 and 6 connectors all with -35dB ORL. I think the minimum loss for ER is 10dB so we should use that as
a minimum. For LR we can use something like 4dB or 5dB (same idea as used for 802.3bs and 802.3cd for 10km). Thanks, Mark From: Peter Jones (petejone) [mailto:petejone@xxxxxxxxx]
Folks, We have a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 7, 2017 2:00 PM-3:30 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). I think the major topic that is open is comment i-38 (see below) Anyone got any good ideas how to progress this topic? Please let me know by EOD Tuesday PT if you want to present on this, or any other topics. Regards Peter _________________________________________________
Peter Jones 802.3cc 25GSMF Task Force Ad Hoc Chair _________________________________________________
-----Original Appointment----- Extending series. ------------------------------- As announced in the F2F at the March meeting, (see
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/25GSMF/public/1603_Macau/jones_25gesmf_01_0316.pdf ), the 802.3cc 25GSMF AdHoc will re-commence weekly meetings in the Wednesday 2:00pm-3:30pm PST
slot. The goal of these meetings is to hear contributions to progress the work of the Task Force. Please send requests for presentation time at least 24 hours before the meeting time (preferably earlier), and send presentations at least 24 hours in advance. If there are no requests for presentation time, the meetings will be cancelled. Regards Peter Jones 25GSMF 802.3cc AdHoc chair
|