Dan,
Based on today’s call,
I would like to suggest the following update to the proposed Alternatives Study
List.
10km over SMF reach
objective
”
1x
technology (10G) optical interface alternatives
1.
1550nm
10x10G cooled EML DWDM array / 200GHz ITU G.694.2
grid
2.
1550nm
10x10G un-cooled DML CWDM array / 20nm ITU G.694.2 grid
”
2x
technology (20G) optical interface alternatives
3.
1310nm
5x21G cooled EML DWDM array / 200GHz ITU consistent grid
4.
1310nm
5x21G un-cooled DML (or EML) CWDM array / 20nm ITU G.694.2
grid
5.
1310nm
4x26G un-cooled DML (or EML) CWDM array / 25nm IEEE LX-4
grid
”
4x
technology (40G) optical interface alternatives
6.
1310nm
2x56G DQPSK / single wavelength
(SMF
interfaces use 64B/66B encoding)
100m over OM3 MMF reach
objective
7.
850nm
12x10G VCSEL array / MPO ribbon fiber
(parallel
optics MMF interfaces use 8B/10B encoding)
Are there other
specific optical interfaces that should be added to our Alternatives Study
List?
Chris
From:
Dove, Dan [mailto:dan.dove@HP.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06,
2006 12:05 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [HSSG] <HSSG-FO> Fiber Optic
Ad Hoc Teleconference 12/06/2006 Minutes
Minutes:
12/06/06
-------------------------------------
Introductions
Call
for email indicating attendance
Attendees: Dan Dove, Chris Cole, Steve Song, Greg McSorley, Larry Green,
Schelto Vandoorn,Milind Gokhale, Peter Dartnell, Xavier Clairardin, Winston Way,
Shashi Patel, Martin Carroll, Ralf-Peter Braun, Paul Kolesar, Itsuro
Morita
Chris
Cole's
Presentation
==================
Moved
through pg 1 and 2 readily, page three also discussed 25G(4
channel)
Peta r: Are you doing this in tandem with some work going on in
the PCS, or is this a module-side perspective?
Chris: System guys looking at
MAC architectures, 1st gen MACs likely will be 10G and 20GCDR is going to be
pushing technology
Note: We need concensus on the PCS lane width as this may
help direct optic widths.
12x10G links (8G links with 8B10B coding) as an
example versus 10x10.3
Petar is indicating that offering 12 channels would
render parallel optic solutions and WDM solutions with a common channel
width
John Jaeger - Proposing x12 for WDM fiber?
Schelto/Petar - Latency
is important to consider. 8B10B would provide lower latency.
Chris: 4 Channel
necessary?
Paul K: 4 channels have advantage for mux/demux being a binary
value. But acknowledges cost of increased data rate may not balance
out.
Chris: 6/5/4 still open for 2X, 12/10 still open for 1X.
Chris: It
would be nice to have 40Km solution that is leveragable from 10Km solution..we
should think about it, but 40Km is currently not an official
objective.
Chris: 12x10 should be included in our consideration for
multi-fiber solutions.
Chris: Sounds like we have agreement that nobody is
calling for anything other than 2 level signaling.
Petar: Is 12 channel much
harder for WDM?
Chris: For DWDM, not. For CWDM.. Could be. The price of
commonality on the 12 channel between MM and SM is not readily understood as
worth its value.
John J: Not interested in 12 channel WDM
Chris: Did not
put up 10x10G @ 1310…does not fit in 1310 window.
Chris: Did not put 1310 in
1x technology because people are not really doing that and would not be
leveragable.
Chris: Sounds like we should add 12x10G on the electrical
interface. We should look at infiniband and see how we might leverage
that.
Chris: Uncooled solutions provide substantial (40%) savings in
cost.
Chris: We should add 2x56G DQPSK
Petar: Should we assume that PCS
interface and PMDs will have different channel widths?
Dan: Should we
optimize the PCS interface for its ability to be leveraged on MM fiber and then
leave complexity to SM solution?
Chris: OIF offering to develop an electrical
interface that can run up to 25G.
Itsuro
Morita 's Presentation
=======================
DQPSK allows up to 50Km
distance.
Petar: Why not measuring to 10e-12?
Itsuro: Did not use
precoder, so expected error rate in receive could not be measured. (not sure I
captured this correctly)
Dan: RZ Carving?
Itsuro: For long distance
transmission, RZ carving is additional modulation stage driven by
clock.
Chris: Is proposal for 10Km 1310 DQPSK?
Itsuro: Yes, if it can be
applied to 1310, it would be good solution. Not sure if its doable yet. Needs
further study.
Chris: Don't believe DCF is practical.
Petar: If you use
DCF, it would require tailoring of DCF to length… is this the
recommendation?
Itsuro: For 10Km, with fixed DCF may be possible. Needs
study.
Chris: Are you going to study the 1310nm/10Km alternative?
Itsuro:
Need to survey availability of technology to see if it can be
done/shared.
Chris: Can you share which components are used?
Petar: Why
108 bit delay.
Petar: Modules? Should
we try to force them into the same form factor?
Dan: IEEE does not deal with
implementations, but architectures.
Chris: Could we have 12 *and* 10 lane
interfaces defined at MAC/PHY boundary?
Dan: To paraphrase; Can we have two
PCSs and because they are highly digital, embed them in the MAC/PCS chip and
thereby provide a common differential interface for either PCS with different
lane counts? -- Seems possible
Larry: Meeting schedule for Monterrey?
Dan: Dunno.
Please check the IEEE website. We will meet within the HSSG and not as a
separate breakout.
Dan: Please keep an open perspective on how to solve the
MAC/PCS interface solution when looking at PMD solutions with the desire that we
come up with something that works best for all cases.
If there any
modifications required to these minutes, please send me an email with specific
recommendations for change.
Monday Dec 18th at 10am
is our next meeting
I will send out a
notice with specifics of the call soon.
Best
Regards,
Dan
Dove
HSSG-FO
Chair