| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi everyone, I would like to propose
the change of Reach (Technical) Feasibility Table what Chris created. Please see attached file. We confirmed that 1550nm DML
is possible to support 10G-10km/40km. Also, it might be
possible to support 20G/25G-10km if only dispersion penalty is a bottleneck. My proposed change is as
follows. 1) 10km, 1550nm, 10G DML: change to “yes” from “maybe” 2) 40km, 1550nm, 10G DML: change to “yes” or “maybe”
from “no” 3) 10km, 1550nm, 20G/25G DML: change to “maybe” from “no” Any comments are welcomed
for me. Have a happy holiday! Eddie Eddie Tsumura Vice president of
Engineering and Marketing Excelight Communications (A Sumitomo Electric Company) Phone 919-361-1634 Fax 919-361-1619 From:
HSSG Members, We held our
teleconference this morning but unfortunately, the bridge supplier I use had
changed their PIN system and I was forced to send out a new bridge number at
the last minute. I realize some people were unable to attend due to this occurrance,
and I give you my apologies. I am going to provide the
meeting notes below. If you see any need for correction to the notes, please
send an email to dan.dove@hp.com and I
will update the minutes before posting them on the HSSG-FOAH website. This will
prevent multiple messages with corrections being sent onto the reflector, OK? Also, for all who are
interested, I am calling for presentations at the January Interim. Those
presentations should be specific to proving technical and economic feasibility
for a single-mode 10Km link, and for a 100m multi-mode link. It is important to
recognize that we are not trying to select a specific proposal at this time,
but to demonstrate to > 75% of the HSSG and IEEE 802.3 that we have proven
these things. Today's work was focused
on single-mode only, so we should be sure to get multi-mode presentations on
the table as well. Regards, Dan Dove Chairman, HSSG FO Adhoc ============================================== Meeting Notes: Attendees:
Discussed the new table additions and corrections
made since last teleconference; Discussed Chris Cole Presentation; 10G Rows: Matt: Discrete devices available, extrapolation
not necessarily valid For example, EMLs tend to be larger, take up more
wafer space Chris: Another thing not captured, 10G DML @ 1550
not considered in green but maybe we should take it off the study list because
hard to build as monolithic array Xaviar: Would like to avoid taking things off at
this point. Would like to present work showing it’s a viable alternative. Chris: DML at 1550 gonna work at 40k?
Mike D: CWDM being considered for all or just
1310? Chris: Does not address this distinction. Slide 4
addresses some of this, but slide 3 is trying to capture wavelength and
transmitter type. This table does not capture "optimum" or
"implementation complexity". 20G Rows: Chris discusses his perspective. Nobody argued
with his position that 20G 10K DML not possible. 50G Rows: General: Would be nice to have 40K and 10K
leverage common approach. Green applied where it appears to be possible. Marc Lucent: Main objective regarding DQPSK at 50
/ 1310 is dispersion? Chris: Yes, the implementation for 50G 1550 looks
large and therefore does not seem LAN oriented. At 1310 makes better sense. Marc: For 40Km, 1550, might make better sense for
this longer reach. Chris: Yes, the breakpoints for 10G are 1310 DML
and 1550 EML, so this is consistent. For us, its possible to set the breakpoint
at 40-80Km. Question is, do we really want to add the cost of this technology
for 40Km. Marc: Chromatic dispersion your primary concern? Chris: Looking forward to presentations on this
subject. Robert Lingle: Main Point to have a pluggable in
a small form factor and dispersion compensation may prohibit this. Chris, yes. Peter: Do you see an activity to standardize a
form factor for a module? Chris: yes. Likely done outside IEEE. Peter: Would larger group oppose having different
form factors? Matt: With regard to 20/25G DML, been looking at
1310…wonder, at 10K, what were the dispersion numbers that led you to
your conclusion? Dan: My notes missed some of the content on this
part..it was pretty dense..sorry; Chris: Is there a breakpoint between 20G and 25G
on DML? Chris: Could provide an EML spec as long as it
was possible to reduce cost in future. Frank: We are dealing with tech feasibility, we
need to consider cost too. For example, with 25G, you cannot do arrays, it
creates a big cost issue. Chris: yes, this is accurate. We need an economic
feasibility table. Discussion of page 4: Copying conclusions from page 3 and modified
format to make things more visible; Why did 1550 get eliminated? Concluded DMLs in
the timeframe not feasible due to dispersion. This conclusion has been challenged and
presentations may come in to address that. For EML 20G 40Km is not leveragable. Matt: Agrees with earlier comment to allow for
1st gen to focus on EML with longterm DML targets… maybe able to collapse
rows 2,3 and 4,5 together. Chris: Would be good to come up with an approach
that allows this to happen. Chris: We can add to the format additional
proposals per email and discussion. Mike: Is the intent of the cooling and grid
columns to be 1 for 1 across? Chris: If no cooling, drift will be larger and
thus they should be cited independently. Chris: Semi-cooling is less precise than cooling,
but offers a lower cost means..for example heating to ensure minimum temps are
eliminated. No more comments on
presentation. Some discussion on the upcoming meeting and it was stated by the
chair that we should build presentations for January's interim rather than
divide our attention on another phone conference. Teleconference closed. |
Reach Feasibility of 1550nm DML for 10G and beyond.pdf