RE: [EFM] [Forecasts on 1 GE from NW]
Richard,
1 GE P2P over a single fiber, IS NOT, the degenerative case for 1 G
EPON(no burst). It should cost the same "bananas" as single mode 1000
Base-X Ext. Temp.
Single wavelength P2P, 1310/1310 is less expensive (and less inventory).
Even two wavelength P2P is not a derivative at the OLT side, if cost is
king, which it is indeed.
Meir
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Brand [mailto:rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:12 AM
To: seto.koichiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [EFM] [Forecasts on 1 GE from NW]
Greetings Seto:
Although I am interested in 1 GE P2P over a single fiber, that is after
all,
the degenerative case for 1 G EPON, so we must concentrate on both. Our
objectives already specify 1000 Base-X with extended temp range optics
(and
in practice, at least the clocking functional block as well at the ONU)
AND
PHY for PON @ 1 G which will also require extended temp range components
at
the ONU so except for flux budget, the L1 issues are similar.
Richard Brand
"Seto, Koichiro" wrote:
> [Date: 11/30/2001 From Seto]
>
> Richard,
> Interesting. Should we stop working on EPON as well and
> concentrate on 1Gbps P2P only?
>
> Seto
>
> >EFMers
> >The attached Network World article has pushed me to make a case for
why
> >we should not waste our time on a 100M PHY effort. I will be the
first
> >to rail on the point that 1 GE chips in the enterprise environment
will
> >be severely stressed in the -20 to +85 degree C. environment of a
> >residential demarc installation in the USA. However, my ex brethren
> >from the semiconductor industry tell me that they can now yield PLL
> >chips to work over that temp with a minimum of problems and I must
trust
> >them until we prove differently. Anybody in the Southwest or Canada
(or
> >anywhere else for that matter) having problems with their
Electronically
> >Tuned Radios at extreme temps?
> >Optics for 1310 1 GE in this environment may be a different story,
but I
> >don't see a major difference in that challenge between 100M and 1 G.
> >I still see HDTV at 1080p as the "killer application" for this
standard
> >as I have recently seen a 38.57M simulated HDTV transmission which
will
> >be the expectation starting in the sport bars and then moving into
the
> >home. To me, that means more than 100Mb/s to each home within the
next
> >five years because many homes will want to watch more than 1 channel
of
> >HDTV at any one time (see my presentation to the 3/01 meeting on the
> >w-site -brand_1_0301.pdf).
> >Feedback?
> >Richard Brand