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

Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] 802.3cn Interim Teleconference ER8, ER4, ER1 Specifications Proposal Presentation preview



Dear Colleagues,

 

I have received several comments that presented data tables make it difficult to understand the analysis, and suggestions were made to use graphs. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Therefore I plotted the 400GBASE-ER8 RX Sens OMA (max) data and analysis from Tables 4, 5 and 6 (see previous email below), in the enclosed Data 2018 graph. (Please hold off looking at the Data 2018-19 graph until later in this email.) I ran out of time to do the same for TX OMA (max).

 

The 802.3cn Editor responses to the proposed Public Comment changes to increase Optical Margin and Yield of the Draft D3.0 Specifications have now been published on-line:

http://www.ieee802.org/3/cn/comments/P802d3cn_D3p0_public_comments_prop_Cl.pdf

All comments are suggested Reject and all use similar justification.

 

Let’s look in detail at the Editor’s justification for rejecting one of the comments which proposed changing the critical RX Sens OMA (max) specification to improve the 400GBASE-ER8 receiver yield from 2% to 100%.

 

The data used in cole_3cn_01_190924.pdf on optical power levels comes from presentations to the IEEE 802.3 Beyond 10km Optical PHYs Study Group prior to the adoption of the optical budget in the baseline for 400GBASE-ER8 in November 2018 (which is the same budget as in the latest P802.3cn draft) with vote Y:63, N:0, A:7. The devices reported in these presentations could not have been optimized for the 400GBASE-ER8 application that had yet to be defined. It is therefore not valid to try to assess manufacturing yield from these reported results.

 

The source for the data used in the analysis supporting the change, is all the data presented throughout 2018 in Beyond 10km Study Group, and then referenced in support of the Nov. 2018 400GBASE-ER8 baseline specification proposal  chang_3cn_01b_1118.pdf. The RX Sens OMA (max) spec in that proposal, -16.1dBm, chang_3cn_01b_1118, is exactly the same value as it is today in the published Draft 3.0. The Editor response dismisses all of this data. This may be wise, since the data shows that the specification can not be met at a reasonable cost (2% yield).

 

Since all 2018 data has now been invalidated, let’s look at what devices “optimized for the 400GBASE-ER8 application” look like. The only additional data presented in 802.3cn was chang_3cn_01a_0319, in Mar. 2019. Analysis of the data shows that the average of two devices RX Sens OMA (max) is worse by 0.5dB than the average of the 2018 data. The result of combining the 2019 data with the 2018 data is shown in the enclosed Data 2018-19 graph. The Optical Margin is degraded by 0.2dB and the yield is reduced by 10x, from 2% to 0.2%.

 

In a previously sent email, the major Network Operators (China Mobile, Chine Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, Verizon, ATT and NTT) clearly stated that cost of Optical PMDs is critical. It is not a good reflection on our process that their requirements are ignored.  

 

Another change proposed in the submitted Public Comments was to use “R1” instead of “R” for single lane PMDs, specifically 50GBASE-ER1 (not 50GBASE-ER).  The Editor suggests Reject, and justifies this by correctly pointing out that IEEE 802.3 has not previously used “R1” for single lane optical PMDs. But that is exactly the reason all the major Cloud Data Center Operators (Alibaba, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Tencent) requested of 802.3 that nomenclature be changed from past practice of generic “R” to explicit “R1”; cole_3cu_01a_0719. This pattern of disregarding End User requirements is troubling.

 

Chris

 

 

From: Chris Cole
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 12:55 AM
To: 'STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 802.3cn Interim Teleconference ER8, ER4, ER1 Specifications Proposal Presentation preview

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

At ECOC 2019, I received several clarifications from contributors about their TF data sets. I have accordingly updated the Margin and Yield analysis Tables newly numbered 4, 5, 6, and 7, see below. The changes are only a few tenths of a dB from previous analysis.

 

Also added are new Tables 1, 2, and 3 for ER8, ER4, and ER1, respectively, comparing the Optical Margins between all the TF contributed data sets. Since Jan. 2018, every data set shows the same thing:

  • ER8 does not have sufficient TX and RX Optical Margin to be manufacturable,
  • ER1 and ER4 will benefit from decreasing TX OMA (min) and RX Sens (max).

 

TF contributors recognized that to meet the 40km ER8 reach requirement with sufficient manufacturing margin requires technologies. For example, Shuto Yamamoto identified stronger FEC and Xinyuan Wang identified enhanced EML, enhanced APD, and enhanced FEC. There may be others. When applied to ER8, these will fundamentally alter the spec, in unknown combination of TX OMA (min), RX Sens (max), penalties, and other changes. It is very unlikely that the new technologies will optimally match the 40km ER8 spec. baseline in Draft 3.0. 

 

The TF choice is simple:

  • Adopt 30km reach ER8 spec. which is feasible today.
  • Defer adopting any spec. until new technologies are proven to support 40km reach, and then write a new spec accordingly,

 

Adopting a 40km spec. not manufacturable with today’s technology does not serve anyone’s interests.

 

Chris

 

 

Table 1. 400GBASE PMD Optical Margin comparisons

Reference

400GBASE

PMD

Transmitter

Optical Margin

(or Yield)

Receiver

Optical Margin

(or Yield)

Total

Optical Margin

(or Yield)

Units

cole_3bs_01a_0515

LR8

2

  1.9 *

3.9

dB

yamamoto_b10k_01a_0118

(1 RX, 1 TX data sets)

ER8

-0.2

0.9

  0.7 *

dB

yu_b10k_01c_0318

(2 RX, 1 TX data sets)

ER8

0.9

0.2

1.1

dB

wang_b10k_01a_0518

(1 RX, 1 TX data sets)

ER8

1.6

-0.1

  1.5 *

dB

jackson_b10k_01_0918

(2 RX, 2 TX data sets)

ER8

0.9

0.2

1.1

dB

huang_b10k_01a_0918

(2 RX data sets)

ER8

 

-0.1

 

dB

cole_3cn_01_190924

draft D3.0 analysis

ER8

0.9

0.1

1.0

dB

42

2

1

%

cole_3cn_01_190924

draft D3.0 proposal

LR8

2.0

1.9

3.9

dB

98

100

98

%

* Margin shown in the presentation

 

 

Table 2. 200GBASE PMD Optical Margin comparisons

Reference

200GBASE

PMD

Transmitter

Optical Margin

(or Yield)

Receiver

Optical Margin

(or Yield)

Total

Optical Margin

(or Yield)

Units

cole_3bs_03_0516

LR4

3.1

  2.2 *

5.3

dB

yu_b10k_01c_0318

ER4

1.1

2.2

  3.3 *

dB

cole_3cn_01_190924

draft D3.0 analysis

ER4

0.8

2.1

2.9

dB

65

100

64.6

%

cole_3cn_01_190924

draft D3.0 proposal

ER4

1.5

1.4

2.9

dB

96

100

96

%

* Margin shown in the presentation

 

 

Table 3. 50GBASE PMD Optical Margin comparisons

Reference

50GBASE

PMD

Transmitter

Optical Margin

(or Yield)

Receiver

Optical Margin

(or Yield)

Total

Optical Margin

(or Yield)

Units

cole_3cd_01_0516

LR1

6.2

  3.1 *

9.3

dB

xu_3cn_01b_1118

ER1

2.9

4.2

7.1

dB

cole_3cn_01_190924

draft D3.0 analysis

ER1

2.8

4.1

6.9

dB

100

100

99.8

%

cole_3cn_01_190924

draft D3.0 proposal

ER1

3.9

3.0

6.9

dB

100

100

100

%

* Margin shown in the presentation

 

 

Table 4. 802.3cn Data Statistics

Description

median

average

sigma

min

max

units

TX OMA

Pre-Mux

8.2

8.2

0.7

7.2

9.0

dBm

RX Sens OMA

Post-DeMux

-19.2

-19.2

0.4

-20.0

-18.6

dBm

 

Sigma bin

-3 → -2

-2 → -1

-1 → 0

0 → 1

1 → 2

2 → 3

TX OMA bin count

0

1

1

2

1

0

TX Normal ref. count

0.1

0.7

1.7

1.7

0.7

0.1

RX Sens OMA bin count

0

1

3

3

1

0

RX Normal ref. count

0.2

1.1

2.7

2.7

1.1

0.2

 

 

Table 5.  P802.3cn draft D3.0 Select Optical Specifications Margin and Yield analysis

Transmitter Description

50GBASE-ER1

200GBASE-ER4

400GBASE-ER8

unit

Reach

40

40

40

km

Penalties

2

2

2

dB

Mux loss (max)

0

2

3

dB

TX OMA (max)

7.4

7.4

6.4

dBm

TX OMA (min)

3.4

3.4

2.4

dBm

TX OMA (min) margin

2.8

0.8

0.8

dB

TX OMA Yield

100

65

42

%

 

 

 

 

 

Receiver

Description

50GBASE-ER1

200GBASE-ER4

400GBASE-ER8

unit

Reach

40

40

40

km

RX Sens OMA (max)

SECQ = 1.4

-15.1

-15.1

-16.1

dBm

DeMux loss (max)

0

2

3

dB

RX Sens OMA (max) margin

4.1

2.1

0.1

dB

RX Sens OMA Yield

100

100

2

%

 

 

 

 

 

TX OMA * RX Sens Yield

100

65

1

%

 

 

Table 6.  P802.3cn draft D3.0 Select Optical Specifications with public comment changes analysis

Transmitter Description

50GBASE-ER1

200GBASE-ER4

400GBASE-ER8

unit

Reach

40

40

30

km

Penalties

2

2

2

dB

Mux loss (max)

0

2

3

dB

TX OMA (max)

7.4

5.2

4.2

dBm

TX OMA (min)

3.4

1.2

0.2

dBm

TX OMA (min) margin

2.8

3.0

3.0

dB

TX OMA Yield

100

99

98

%

 

 

 

 

 

Receiver

Description

50GBASE-ER1

200GBASE-ER4

400GBASE-ER8

unit

Reach

40

40

30

km

RX Sens OMA (max)

SECQ = 1.4

-15.1

-17.3

-15.3

dBm

DeMux loss (max)

0

2

3

dB

RX Sens OMA (max) margin

4.1

-0.1

0.9

dB

RX Sens OMA Yield

100

4

91

%

 

 

 

 

 

TX OMA * RX Sens Yield

100

3

90

%

 

 

Table 7.  P802.3cn draft D3.0 Select Optical Specifications with updated proposed changes analysis

Transmitter Description

50GBASE-ER1

200GBASE-ER4

400GBASE-ER8

unit

Reach

40

40

30

km

Penalties

2

2

2

dB

Mux loss (max)

0

2

3

dB

TX OMA (max)

6.3

6.7

5.2

dBm

TX OMA (min)

2.3

2.7

1.2

dBm

TX OMA (min) margin

3.9

1.5

2.0

dB

TX OMA Yield

100

96

98

%

 

 

 

 

 

Receiver

Description

50GBASE-ER1

200GBASE-ER4

400GBASE-ER8

unit

Reach

40

40

30

km

RX Sens OMA (max)

SECQ = 1.4

-16.2

-15.8

-14.3

dBm

DeMux loss (max)

0

2

3

dB

RX Sens OMA (max) margin

3.0

1.4

1.9

dB

RX Sens OMA Yield

100

100

100

%

 

 

 

 

 

TX OMA * RX Sens Yield

100

96

98

%

 


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

Attachment: Data 2018.jpg
Description: Data 2018.jpg

Attachment: Data 2018-19.jpg
Description: Data 2018-19.jpg