Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
Couldn't you just do a quick Q measurement which gives
an estimate for the 0/1 amplitude levels and the noise variances
from which you derive the minimum BER ? This is a common
technique in optical transmission experiments. Such a measurement
will take only a few seconds and you will extrapolate your data down
to very low BER values (this method assumes that there are no other
flaws or background errors from other sources, but it would give a
quick estimate ...)
marcus
Chris Cole wrote:
> 40G VSR Transceivers have receiver sensitivity specified at BER=1e-12. This is defined in the ITU application code G.693. 40G Transceivers are also production tested at BER=1e-12.
>
> System OEM customers have been satisifed with data from the design verification phase that demonstrate there are no error floors down to BER=1e-15. That takes two days per point, with a high confidence level. To verify a unit over five supply/temperature corners takes a week and half . Multiple test stations can be set up to test units in parallel.
>
> At 100G, the test time will be reduced by a factor of 3, so a requirement for error free operation down to BER=1e-15 is reasonable for design verification, and BER=1e-12 is reasonable for production.
>
> Chris Cole
> Finisar
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Petar Pepeljugoski [mailto:petarp@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Mon 8/28/2006 8:03 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>
>
> I agree with Howard. It is impractical and expensive to test for very low BERs - the specs should be such that the power budget is capable of achieving BER =1e-15, yet the testing can be some kind of accelerated BER at lower value that is derived from the curve interpolation.
>
> However, the as with any extrapolation of testing results one has to be careful, so in this case it will be manufacturers' responsibility to guarantee the BER=1e-15.
>
> Regards,
>
> Petar Pepeljugoski
> IBM Research
> P.O.Box 218 (mail)
> 1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134 (shipping)
> Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
>
> e-mail: petarp@xxxxxxxxxx
> phone: (914)-945-3761
> fax: (914)-945-4134
>
>
>
>
> Howard Frazier <hfrazier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 08/28/2006 05:39 PM
> Please respond to
> Howard Frazier <hfrazier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To
> STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> cc
> Subject
> Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For the 100 Mbps EFM fiber optic links (100BASE-LX10 and 100BASE-BX10)
> we specified a BER requirement of 1E-12, consistent with the BER requirement
> for gigabit links. We recognized that this would be impractical to test in a
> production environment, so we defined a means to extrapolate a BER of 1E-12
> by testing to a BER of 1E-10 with an additional 1 dB of attenuation. See
> 58.3.2 and 58.4.2.
>
> Howard Frazier
> Broadcom Corporation
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Roger Merel [mailto:roger@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 1:54 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
> David,
>
> Prior to 10G, the BER standard (for optical communications) was set at 1E-10 (155M-2.5G). At 10G, the BER standard was revised to 1E-12. For unamplified links, the difference between 1E-12 and 1E-15 is only a difference of 1dB in power delivered to the PD. However, the larger issue is one of margin and testability (as the duration required to reliably verify 1E-15 for 10G is impractical as a factory test on every unit) especially since we'd want to spec worst case product distribution at worst case path loss (cable+connector loss) and at EOL with margin. Thus in reality, all products ship at BOL from the factory with a BER of 1E-15 and in fact nearly all will continue to deliver 1E-15 for their entire life under their actual operating conditions and with their actual cable losses.
>
> Thus, if by "design target", you mean a worst case-worst case with margin to be assured at EOL on every factory unit, then this is overkill. I might be willing to entertain a 1E-13 BER as this would imply that same number of errors per second (on an absolute basis; irrespective of the number of bits being passed; this takes the same time in the factory as verifying 1E-12 at 10G although this is in fact a real cost burden which adversely product economics); however, this would not substantially change the reality of the link budget. It would make for a sensible policy for the continued future of bit error rate specs (should their be future "Still-Higher-Speed" SG's).
>
> -Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: Martin, David (CAR:Q840)
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 12:22 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: BER Objective
>
> During the discussion on Reach Objectives there didn't appear to be any mention of corresponding BER.
>
> Recall the comments from the floor during the July meeting CFI, regarding how 10GigE has been used more as infrastructure rather than as typical end user NICs. And that the application expectation for 100GigE would be similar.
>
> Based on that view, I'd suggest a BER design target of (at least) 1E-15. That has been the defacto expectation from most carriers since the introduction of OC-192 systems.
>
> The need for strong FEC (e.g., G.709 RS), lighter FEC (e.g., BCH-3), or none at all would then depend on various factors, like the optical technology chosen for each of the target link lengths.
>
> ...Dave
>
> David W. Martin
> Nortel Networks
> dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> +1 613 765 2901 (esn 395)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
--
___________________________
Marcus Duelk
Bell Labs / Lucent Technologies
Data Optical Networks Research
Crawford Hill HOH R-237
791 Holmdel-Keyport Road
Holmdel, NJ 07733, USA
fon +1 (732) 888-7086
fax +1 (732) 888-7074