[EFM] RE: [EFM-P2P] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P

["Hans Mickelsson (ERA)" <Hans.Mickelsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bernie, 
of course, you are absolutely right. Thanks for the correction.

	//HANS 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eichenbaum, Bernard R (Bernard)** NL **
> [mailto:eichenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: den 15 februari 2002 19:54
> To: 'Mike Dudek'; Hans Mickelsson (ERA)
> Cc: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
> stds-802-3-efm-p2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bob.barret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; doravv@xxxxxxxxxx; 
> FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> jradcliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx;
> mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> sasaki144@xxxxxxx; schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx;
> wdiab@xxxxxxxxx; Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [EFM-P2P] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
> 
> 
> The quoted temperature dependencies are too conservative by a 
> factor of ten.
> For example, uncooled DFBs drift on the order of 0.1 nm / 
> degree C or K, and
> shave that down to 0.09 if more precision is needed. This is 
> true across the
> single mode fiber spectrum, O-band to L-band.
> 
> Bernie Eichenbaum
> OFS Optical Fiber Division
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Dudek [mailto:mdudek@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 1:35 PM
> To: Hans Mickelsson (ERA)
> Cc: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
> stds-802-3-efm-p2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bob.barret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; doravv@xxxxxxxxxx; 
> FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> jradcliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx;
> mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> sasaki144@xxxxxxx; schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx;
> wdiab@xxxxxxxxx; Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [EFM-P2P] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
> 
> 
> 
> VCSEL change in wavelength as a function of temperature is 
> similar/slightly
> better than the quoted number for the DFB.
> 
> "Hans Mickelsson (ERA)" wrote:
> 
> > Tom,
> >
> > Good work, see below for some comments.
> >
> > "Fewest variations of PMD to track in field". I agree that 
> it will be less
> PMDs to track however if this is a real problem is not clear. 
> Assume that
> you decide to use a certain lamda for downstream then it it 
> ijust to follow
> this approach in all your switches and the problem will be 
> non-existing.
> >
> > Can you explain "Use of inexpensive TOSA a bit further"?
> >
> > "Temperature performance". An un-cooled DFB (0.01 nm/K) is less temp
> dependent than a FP (0.03 nm/K). Can anyone give some figures 
> for a VCSEL?
> >
> > "Leverage of 1310 nm....", True, but you raise an 
> interesting question
> here. The use of parallel optics will be very difficult with 
> any single
> fiber solution.
> >
> > Some othe options to consider are;
> >
> > The need for angled polished connectors for controlling 
> refelctions in the
> network. Not necessary for dual but probably necessary for single.
> >
> > Will the be any difference between the two options in an 
> up-grade scenario
> to higher bit-rates?
> >
> >         Brgds//HANS MICKELSSON
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: den 14 februari 2002 17:25
> > > To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; 
> stds-802-3-efm-p2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > bob.barret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > doravv@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hans.mickelsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > jradcliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx; PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sasaki144@xxxxxxx;
> > > schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello All,
> > >
> > > First off I apologise for a blanket bomb approach with
> > > sending out this e-mail but
> > > I have my reasons, as will become clear below.
> > >
> > > As most of you will know, I am currently co-ordinating 
> the development
> > > of a single fibre, single wavelength PMD proposal for P2P links.
> > > During a recent discussion of this work, it became clear that
> > > a number of people
> > > were unaware of what was happening or still unclear of some
> > > of the technical issues involved. Several questions arose
> > > which had already been answered in the course of dedicated
> > > telephone conferences and
> > > some new issues were also raised.
> > >
> > > Of course this discussion is very good for the quality of the
> > > standard. However,
> > > in the interest of progress and completion of a baseline
> > > proposal for March, it
> > > is essential that people allay any concerns they may have in
> > > the interim and go
> > > into the meeting feeling ready to make an informed decision.
> > >
> > > I would therefore ask people who have an opinion (or concern)
> > > in this direction
> > > to speak up, raise the issues and avoid further surprises 
> in St Louis.
> > >
> > > Arising from the aforementioned discussions was the idea that
> > > a 2 wavelength
> > > PMD may be an alternative approach. In order to facilitate
> > > comparison of the
> > > two ideas, a matrix was proposed which I have included here
> > > in a somewhat modified
> > > form. I divided the table into Today and Future, the former
> > > represent current laser sources (FP and DFB)
> > > and the later assuming the use of VCSELs, be that at 1310,
> > > 1490 or 1550 nm. I dislike the 1-10
> > > approach of comparing as this is too subjective, rather a
> > > binary 0 or 1 representing the better solution
> > > for a particular criteria. In some cases there are no
> > > differences and both receive 0. The 'points'
> > > are added and a comparison may be made.  NOTE, this will not
> > > be the basis of the decision, rather an aid
> > > to objective comparison. I have included comments behind each
> > > issue cells detailing my evaluation.
> > >
> > > So, speak up, play with the table, add issues if necessary,
> > > send it back to me,
> > > get on the telephone conferences.
> > >
> > > Best regards and looking forward to further progress.
> > >
> > > Tom and the P2P group
> > >
> > >  <<Comparison matrix for 1 and 2 wavelength PMDs.xls>>
> > >
>