| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I have updated the table as per the
comments below. I also changed the table entry shading to
designate alternatives that appear to be under detailed investigation by Fiber
Optic Ad Hoc contributors. If there are alternatives for which detailed
investigation results will be presented and which are not shaded, please send
an email so that these alternatives can be marked appropriately. If after a round of email comments, we get
consensus on the format, perhaps we can post it on the Fiber Optic web site to
keep track of expected presentations in support of the various 100GE SMF alternatives. Best New Year wishes to everyone.
From: Tsumura, Eddie
[mailto:etsumura@EXCELIGHT.COM] 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 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. |
HSSGFO_alternatives_010207.pdf