Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF Ad Hoc and MMF Ad Hoc rescheduled



Ali,

Thanks for delving in here.  In addition to your observations and proposals, I’d like to return to my question posed on the ad-hoc call just prior to our interim meeting in Newport Beach, the call wherein the MPN adjustment issues surfaced.  While theoretical model adjustments seem to be what David and Petar are focusing on, I’d like to understand what such adjustments do to the predicted reach capability for 10GBASE-SR.  As a well established solution with millions of port shipments that, as far as I am aware, have not produced unexpectedly high field failure rates, it provides a reasonable means to cross-check the MPN model changes.  Even if it turns out that the theoretical adjustments are more sound than the currently established model, if they predict that the 10GBASE-SR reach is unsupportable with current MPN factor (i.e. 0.3), then it suggests that the factor is set too high.  If the model with those adjustments still supports the standard reaches, then that provides one test that the adjustments don’t break what is not broken and that the adjustments could be correct, not withstanding your proposals below. 

 

Regards,

Paul

 


From: Ali Ghiasi [mailto:aghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:58 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF Ad Hoc and MMF Ad Hoc rescheduled

 

Jonathan

 

In regard to statement given in your presentation, I like to add some more color to this statement

        Note: recent work on MPN treatment, by David Cunningham, shown in T11 (Fibre Channel), indicates that FEC is a necessity for 100m links

 

32GFC operates at 28.05 GBd, current spreadsheet model do show very steep increase in penalty as result of mode partition noise and cross terms.

The FC group wants to support 100 m on OM4 fiber, with current noise model even with a simple FFE EQ FEC would be required to close the link

budget.  Also the same spreadsheet shows that if we added FEC with overhead and operated at 28 GBd instead of 25.78 with 2.5 dBo or 5 dBe penalty 

we could be worse off than using FEC.  So our only option would be to use inband FEC which has higher latency.

 

With 100GNGOPTX investigating 2nd generation set of PMD where there already exist set of solution, as a group we have to deliver a solution 

which allow seamless migration from 40G-SR4 and is lower cost than 100G-SR10.   If it requires fundamental investigation then the group need

to undertake it!

 

My concern with current spreadsheet model which I have also shared with David Cunningham is how B (bandwidth) is used for calculation of MPN,

for mode partition noise and the cross term for detail analysis please see David presentation 

 

B= 1/(T-DCD) where T is the 1/Baudrate 

 

â=π.B.D.L.σλ

 

σmpn = kOMA/√2 . [1 - e^(-β^2)]

 

I do agree in the ISI calculation we should use DCD to increase the effective baudrate but if 

you have slow laser which is the case for 25.78 operation both ISI and MPN do not increase 

the laser is toggling faster but never reaches steady state!  The spreadsheet already captures 

the ISI penalty and double counting might have been negligible at lower speed when the 

laser were fast but double counting at these speed breaks the link or we end up with a link 

significantly shorter!

 

What seems reasonable here is to use the current B for ISI penalty calculation but for MPN and Cross

use the following 

B1= 0.35/(Teff)

where Teff is the RMS mean of sqrt(Trise^2+Tfall^2/2) as I expect current Ts is in the spreadsheet 

is the Tfall time.

 

Thanks,

Ali

 

 

On Feb 13, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Jonathan King wrote:



Dear all,

Here is my presentation for the MMF ad hoc call , 14th Feb 2012

This is intended to be an introduction to, and framework for, discussion on what we do as an ad hoc to progress towards an MMF objective.

Best wishes

jonathan

 

 

From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 3:48 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SMF Ad Hoc and MMF Ad Hoc rescheduled

 

Hi,

 

By popular request, we have moved this meeting to Tuesday 14 February at the same time as before. (With apologies to Paul who now can’t attend.)

 

Hi,

 

As mentioned by Dan, Jonathan and I are planning to hold an SMF Ad Hoc meeting immediately followed by an MMF Ad Hoc meeting (1 hour each) starting at 8:00 am Pacific on Tuesday 14February.

 

Peter Anslow from Ciena has invited you to join a meeting on the Web, using WebEx. Please join the meeting 5-10 minutes early so we may begin on time. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Topic: "SMF Ad Hoc followed by MMF Ad Hoc" 

Date & Time: Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 16:00, GMT Time (London, GMT) 

To join web meeting click here: https://ciena.webex.com/ciena/j.php?ED=136397587&UID=0&PW=NZGZiMTQ2OTgw&RT=MTgjMjE%3D 

Meeting password: IEEE (please note passwords are case sensitive) 

Teleconference: Call-in number: +44-203-4333547  (United Kingdom) 
Conference Code: 207 012 5535 

Meeting number: 681 000 052 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Additional Notes: 

- To add this meeting to your calendar program click the following link, or copy the link and paste it into your Web browser: https://ciena.webex.com/ciena/j.php?ED=136397587&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=18&ST=1&SHA2=amYBeqds-4oJeKBgc6O4QfHGLLIvaO7ruJQoBj-3bY0=&RT=MTgjMjE%3D 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Australia, Brisbane :        0730870163

Australia, Melbourne :   0383380011

Australia, Sydney :           0282386454

Austria, Vienna :               01253021727

Belgium, Brussels :          028948259

Bulgaria, Sofia : 024917751

Canada, All Cities :           2064450056

China, All Cities Domestic :           8008706896

China, All Cities Domestic :           4006920013

Czech Republic, Prague :               228882153

Denmark, Copenhagen :               32727639

Estonia, Tallinn :                6682564

Finland, Helsinki :             0923193023

France, Paris :    0170375518

Germany, Berlin :             03030013082

Germany, Frankfurt :     06924437355

Hong Kong, Hong Kong :               85230730462

Hungary, Budapest :       017789269

India, Bangalore :             08039418300

India, Chennai - Primary :             04430062138

India, Mumbai :                02239455533

India, New Delhi :            01139418310

Ireland, Dublin :                015269460

Israel, Tel Aviv : 37630760

Italy, Milan :       0200661900

Japan, Tokyo :   0345808383

Korea (South), All Cities :              0264903634

Latvia, Riga :       66013622

Lithuania, Vilnius :            52055461

Luxembourg, Luxembourg :        20881245

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur :              0348190063

Netherlands, Amsterdam :          0207946527

New Zealand, Auckland :              099291734

Norway, Oslo :  21033950

Poland, Warsaw :             223070121

Romania, Bucharest :     318144966

Russian Federation, Moscow :   4992701688

Singapore, All Cities :      6568829970

Slovak Republic, Bratislava :         0233418490

Slovenia, Ljubljana :        016003971

Spain, Barcelona :            935452633

Spain, Madrid :  911146624

Sweden, Stockholm :     0850512711

Switzerland, Bellinzona :               0912611463

United Kingdom, All Cities :         08443386571

United Kingdom, All Cities :         02034333547

United States, All Cities :               4438636577

Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh : 84838012419

 

Regards,

Pete Anslow | Senior Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street | London, EC2A 2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535 |

 

From: Daniel Dove [mailto:ddove@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: 09 February 2012 17:37
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SG Phase - Critters and Objectives

 

John, Steve;

Thanks for this contribution to the forward progress of the Study Group.

I would like to ask that our participants take the time to open the links below and refresh themselves on these points.

In my experience, the tendency for a Study Group to get distracted is not new, and the need to continually remind ourselves of where we are in the process is essential.

I would add that each project has its own unique characteristics and therefore the process provides boundaries but the path will always be slightly different. Given that we (100G Ethernet) have optical PMDs which already exist and satisfy broad market potential, it changes the relative importance of the 5 criteria responses. We are not just comparing ourselves to prior speeds or other media types, but to 100G PMDs that are currently available. We need to be distinct, economically feasible against those alternatives in order to meet the needs of a broad market, and demonstrate we are technically feasible as well.

Your advice is appreciated and we should all be diligent to remain within the process boundaries and seek a path that brings us to a successful PAR and 5 criteria response. In that regard, focus on the process is essential. 

Jonathan and Pete are in the process of setting up a co-joined adhoc meeting that will address objectives and 5C responses for both the MMF and SMF technologies. We hope to provide that focus, and define a path for forward progress.

Best Regards,

Dan

<MMF-objective-Next-Steps.pptx>