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

Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] [802.3_B10K] Dispersion Penalty Presentations



Hi all,

wanted to clarify that when I said 'from different company' I meant 'from individuals affiliated with different companies'.

 

Thanks

Marco

 

From: Marco Mazzini (mmazzini) <00000e5c2535a1ca-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: miércoles, 18 de septiembre de 2019 1:18
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] [802.3_B10K] Dispersion Penalty Presentations

 

Hi Chris,

one thing that should be helpful in my view is to quantify the number of contributions reviewed in 802.3cu versus 802.3cn.

 

A further refination to drive decisions based on experimental results would be also to list the amount of data for both proponent and opponent.

E.g. for 802.3cu, my count is 5 different contributions (each from different company) in the proponent camp and 1 for the opponent one.

 

Thanks and ciao

Marco

 

From: Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: martes, 17 de septiembre de 2019 23:46
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] [802.3_B10K] Dispersion Penalty Presentations

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

During the 802.3 Working Group meeting last Thursday (which I unfortunately was not able to attend), there was further discussion of the 802.3cn technical specs. Given some of the comments that were made, it appears there is a misunderstanding of Chromatic Dispersion Penalty (CDP) scaling with reach and Baud rate, and interplay with transmitter chirp characteristics. Therefore an explanation is warranted.

 

CDP is proportional to CD coefficient, link length, and Baud rate squared.

 

CDP CD * L * B2

 

Calculating the exact penalty is complex, however the CD * L * B2 term can be used for direct, relative comparisons, by defining it as a CDP Figure of Merit (CDP FM).

For convenience, 10km and 25Gbaud are used for normalization.

 

CDP FM = CD * (L/10) * (B/25)2

 

Table 1 below lists key transmitters specs. and CDP FM for various codes, with red highlighting concerns. The take away points are:

 

  • 400GBASE-LR4 10km reach proposal had excessive CDP FM.
  • 400GBASE-LR4 6km reach baseline has reasonable CDP FM.
  • 400GBASE-ER8 40km reach baseline has excessive CDP FM for CD (min).

(Qualitative statement that 50G PAM4 “is a lot easier” than 100G PAM4 is not true at 40km. In fact the opposite it true;  400G ER8 40km (50G PAM4) is harder than 400G LR4 6km and 100G LR1 10km (both 100G PAM4). )

  • 400GBASE-ER8 30km reach proposal will have reasonable CDP FM.
  • 50GBASE-ER, 200GBASE-ER4, 400GBASE-ER8 40km baselines have excessive TX OMA (min).

(This is higher than previous TX OMA values (0.3 and 0.1 dBm for 40G ER4 and 100G ER4, respectively), and is higher than other codes in Table 1. It will significantly drive transmitter cost up by likely requiring a TX amplifier. This undermines the Broad Market Potential, and is counter to the expressed need for low cost by Network Operators.)

  • 50GBASE-ER, 200GBASE-ER4, 400GBASE-ER8 30km proposals will have reasonable TX OMA (min).
  • 50GBASE-LR, 50GBASE-ER have not changed their suffixes to LR1 and ER1 to align with 802.3 convention established this year.

 

TABLE 1

~Baud Rate

Reach

TX OMA

TX OMA – TDECQ

TDECQ

~CD

CDP FM

~CD

CDP FM

Codes

each lane

(max)

each lane (min)

each lane (min)

(max)

(min)

for CD (min)

(max)

for CD (max)

Gbaud

km

dBm

dBm

dB

ps/nm-km

normalized

ps/nm-km

normalized

4WDM-40 (100G ER4f)  (TDP not TDECQ)

25

40

0.5

-0.5

3

-3

12

1

4

50GBASE-LR

25

10

-1.5

-2.9

3.2

-2

2

1.5

2

50GBASE-ER

25

40

3.4

2

3.2

-2

8

1.5

6

100GBASE-LR1

50

10

0.7

-0.6

3.4

-2

8

1.5

6

200GBASE-LR4

25

10

-0.4

-1.7

3.4

-3

3

1

1

200GBASE-ER4

25

40

3.4

2

3.2

-3

12

1

4

400GBASE-LR8

25

10

0.2

-1.1

3.1

-5

5

1

1

400GBASE-ER8

25

30

0.2

-1.2

3.4

-5

15

1

3

400GBASE-ER8

25

40

2.4

1

3.4

-5

20

1

4

400GBASE-LR4

50

6

0.2

-1.1

3.5

-6

14

3

7

40GBASE-LR4

50

10

0.2

-1.1

3.5

-6

24

3

12

 

Table 2 and 3 below explains the dynamics of the review process in the 802.3cu and 802.3cn.

 

In 802.3cu the proponents showed favorable data for 400GBASE-LR4 10km using TX favorable to the proposal. The opponents showed unfavorable data using TX unfavorable to the proposal.

 

In 802.3cu the proponents showed favorable data for 400GBASE-ER8 40km using TX favorable to the proposal. No unfavorable data was shown because no other type of TX was used, i.e. the data is incomplete. And the missing data is exactly in the area of concern. This means Technical Feasibility has not been established.

 

TABLE

EML TX

EML TX

SiPIC TX

802.3cu data

high positive chirp

moderate positive chirp

no chirp

CDP effect

for CD (max)

big detriment

moderately detriment

no detriment

Proponent data

 

X

X

Opponent data

X

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3

EML TX

EML TX

SiPIC TX

802.3cn data

high positive chirp

moderate positive chirp

no chirp

CDP effect for

CD (min)

big help

moderate help

no help

Proponent data

X

 

 

Opponent data

(none)

 

 

 

 

 

802.3cn TF needs to go back and take more measurements to establish a complete data set to demonstrate Technical Feasibility Criteria, and Broad Market Potential.

 

Thank you

 

Chris

 

 

From: Chris Cole
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 11:39 AM
To: John Johnson <john.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B10K] Dispersion Penalty Presentations

 

Hi JJ,

 

Yes, of course. Excellent catch. Please don’t listen to what I say, but what I mean.

 

The chirp for the shortest wavelength is approx. -200ps/nm so positive chirp TX is required to compensate, exactly as you discuss in detail. The beauty of LWDM is that for the 1310nm longest wavelength, practically no positive chirp is seen because no SMF in the field has ZD wavelength appreciably below. That’s why when we make measurements for positive dispersion we have to go through such contortions to use artificially long fibers to simulate conditions never seen in actual operation.

 

You just demonstrated the kind of review that makes 802.3 great. So where were you when the ER8 spec was being written? You actually have to make these EML TOSAs. Where is the concern about +2.4dBm OMA (min) and +1dBm OMA – TDECQ (min), over temp., eight wavelengths and manufacturing spread, while operating in a sufficiently linear regime to get decent PAM4 waveforms? Could it be that deep in your heart you are wishing for Coherent to win? 😊

 

Chris

 

From: John Johnson <000007ff7d378f43-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 10:02 AM
To: STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B10K] Dispersion Penalty Presentations

 

Hi Chris,

 

Outside of the larger debate, I have one nit to pick.  You stated:

 

"The only presented measurements have been favorable ones using EML TX with negative chirp, which compensates for SMF dispersion at short wavelengths."

 

Actually the opposite is true:  you need positive chirp to counteract the effects of negative dispersion.  In EA modulators, strong positive chirp is easier to achieve than negative chirp, which entails more negative bias, higher modulator insertion loss and possibly decreased linearity.  Positive chirp is the “natural” operating mode of an EA modulator, and is easy to achieve with low insertion loss and good linearity. This is the reason that the CD penalty is slightly negative over a wide range of negative dispersion in the presentation by Ooe and Jackson cited below. It’s also the reason that multiple EML suppliers have presented low 10km CD penalties at 1270nm at 100Gbps (but higher CD penalty at 1330nm where negative chirp is needed). Since the 400GBASE-ER8 grid ends at ~1310nm, there is no need for negative chirped modulators for 400GBASE-ER8 At least in this regard, the 25GBd LWDM EML solution is relatively more robust than for 50GBd CWDM.

 

I can't comment on the capability of SiP transmitters for 400GBASE-ER8.  Perhaps Brian can.

 

Regards,

John

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:08 AM Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

 

The issue being raised with the 400GBASE-ER8 proposed specification is not narrowly whether there have been any dispersion measurements, but rather that the specification has not received the kind of scrutiny that is typical of 802.3 standards.

 

An example of appropriate level of scrutiny is what happened this year in 802.3cu, with the 400GBASE-LR4 proposal on CWDM4 grid supporting 10km reach. This proposal was vigorously challenged, which led to multiple iterations of measurements, broad analysis of those measurement by many individuals, and a review of the underlying assumptions behind the reach objective so that the specification actually met the Broad Market Potential criteria. This was in the best tradition of 802.3, and resulted in a revised adopted specification with 6km reach objective. Most importantly, it addressed real End User requirements, which are first and foremost low cost, which in turn will lead to a highly successful PMD.

 

This is in contrast to what has happened in 802.3cn with respect to 400GBASE-ER8 proposal on LWDM grid supporting 40km reach. In below emails, favorable measurements are listed which show that the 40km reach can just be met, just as there are favorable measurements in 802.3cu showing that 10km reach can just be met. What is missing is a range of measurements, including using different technologies.  Just as LR4 on CWDM4 grid for 10km is a stretch, so ER8 on LWDM for 40km is a stretch. Which misses the whole point of creating an IMDD spec. for >10km. There is a solution for reaches beyond IMDD capability, and that is Coherent. At some reach, in order for IMDD to be viable, it has to be substantially lower cost than Coherent, otherwise there is no motivation for End Users to proliferate optics types. They have no choice but to use Coherent. They have a choice whether to use ER8.

 

The 400GBASE-ER8 proposed specification is not low cost because there is little manufacturing margin. The only presented measurements have been favorable ones using EML TX with negative chirp, which compensates for SMF dispersion at short wavelengths. This means that other technologies, in particular MZ TX may not work. To deliberately exclude Silicon Photonics from an IEEE specification is bizarre to say the least, given the huge industry investment in Silicon Photonics technology. This investment likely exceeds investment in any other technology. 802.3 specs are not written to favor just one technology, because it is recognized that picking technology winners should not be part of the standards process.

 

The End Users have been very clear. Meeting arbitrary past reach numbers which made technical sense at lower data rates is much less important than lowest possible cost for the rate of interest. At 400G, 40km ER makes no more sense than 10km LR.

 

http://www.ieee802.org/3/cu/public/Sept19/cole_3cu_01b_0919.pdf#page=3

 

A low cost ER8 spec. needs to be targeted at a lower reach, for example 25km, so that there is ample manufacturing margin for TX power and penalty specs. and multiple technologies can be used to implement the TX. The low cost required of an IMDD optic to be competitive with a Coherent solution will not be achieved if there is little manufacturing margin.

 

The right next step is to go back and subject the current specification to vigorous review, and to obtain accurate End User feedback on what’s more important to them in a >10km IMDD PMD, 40km or low cost. Otherwise the ER8 40km spec. will not only not meet the Broad Market Potential Objective, but will quickly have no market at all as it’s supplanted by Coherent. This guidance maybe have to be provided to 802.3cn TF by the 802.3 Working Group.

 

Thank you

 

Chris

 

From: Hideki Ooe <ooe-hideki@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 7:52 AM
To: STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B10K] Dispersion Penalty Presentations

 

Dear John,

 

Below presentation addresses TDECQ down to -200 ps/nm dispersion (with T-spaced 5-tap FFE), shown in page 5. As usual to EML, it shows negative CD penalty down to -150 ps/nm.

http://www.ieee802.org/3/B10K/public/18_09/jackson_b10k_01_0918.pdf

 

Regards,

-------------------------------------------------

Hideki Ooe <ooe-hideki@xxxxxxxxx>

Transmission Devices Laboratories

Sumitomo Electric Industries

 

 

From: Brian Welch (bpwelch) <00000e3f3facf699-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:42 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B10K] Dispersion Penalty Presentations

 

John,

Thanks for sending, I hadn’t seen these. However in looking at them I don’t see that any TDECQ measurements were taken. Sone_b10k_01a_1117 does indicate some CD penalties, but it does so using a T/2 spaced 17-tap FFE as the receiver, which is quite a bit different that the reference receiver in use in a TDECQ measurement. Do you know of any TDECQ measurements taken (with the prescribed reference equalizer)?

 

Also, given that there are negative CD penalties  down to as low as -150 ps/nm suggests that the transmitters in use have quite a bit of chirp. Do you know if measurements were performed for any un-chirped transmitters?

 

Thanks,

Brian

 

 

From: John DAmbrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 7:57 AM
To: STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_B10K] Dispersion Penalty Presentations

 

All,

Yesterday an issue was raised regarding dispersion, and there was an inquiry regarding any presentations on the topic had been heard.  My thanks to Peter Stassar, who did the digging through the Study Group archives to find the following presentations that had explored assessing the dispersion penalty at high negative dispersion of around -200ps/nm.  As I recall now, this was a key issue for the Study Group to resolve before it finally adopted the 40km objectives and could answer the Technical Feasibility Criteria.

 

SG material.

November 2017:

http://www.ieee802.org/3/B10K/public/17_11/sone_b10k_01a_1117.pdf

 

January 2018:

http://www.ieee802.org/3/B10K/public/18_01/yamamoto_b10k_01a_0118.pdf

 

March 2018

http://www.ieee802.org/3/B10K/public/18_03/yu_b10k_01c_0318.pdf

 

Regards,

 

John D’Ambrosia

Chair, IEEE P802.3cn Task Force


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1