Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] PAM-N discussion in today's NG 100G OE SG

[Chris Bergey <cbergey@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris

 

Your comments are noted and clearly the rise and fall times required for a PAM8 or PAM16 system would need to be greater than 20ns.  I would note that many of the papers you highlighted were focused on 10G NRZ systems for which a 20nS rise time would be quite sufficient and desired.  As a data point, I would point you to the Palkert 01_1111 presentation from Atlanta showing 4x28G transceiver eyes.  These eyes exhibited a rise and fall time <15ps and an ER>3dB, although we took out the measurement details out of the posted IEEE presentation we can provide them again.

 

Regards

Chris

 

 

 

 

From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:54 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] PAM-N discussion in today's NG 100G OE SG

 

During this afternoon’s NG 100G OE SG meeting, a proposal for PAM-8 and PAM-16 modulation 100GE alternatives were presented.

 

http://www.ieee802.org/3/100GNGOPTX/public/jan12/bhoja_01_0112_NG100GOPTX.pdf

 

It appears that required silicon modulator speed as measured by rise and fall times is about 3 times faster than the fastest reported devices in the literature.

The PAM-8 and PAM-16 eyes when simulated with the speed reported by other companies (IBM, ALU, Fujikura, Intel, Luxtera) result in largely closed eyes.

 

We have submitted a post-deadline presentation showing ideal simulations where the ONLY optical device limitation is rise/fall time which is the simplest impairment to look at.

Because of the full schedule, we may not get the time to present it. The presentation is posted at the following ftp site and available for download for those interested:

 

site:                  ftp://ftp.finisar.com/

username:         ieee

password:         ieee8023

file name:            cole_03_0112_NG100GOPTX.pdf

 

Chris