|
All - here are my notes for the 9/2 TP2 call. Please send comments or
corrections if needed.
Attendees (no order)
- Lew Aronson, Finisar
- Andre Van Schyndel, Bookham
- Yi Sun, OFS
- Yu Sun, Optium
- John Dallesasse, Emcore
- Bala Mayampurath, Vitesse
- Piers Dawe, Agilent
- Tom Lindsay, ClariPhy
- Paul Voois, ClariPhy
- Norm Swenson, ClariPhy
- Al Brunsting, Panduit
- Petre Popescu, Quake
- Jens Fiedler, Infineon
- Others?
Summary objective (repeated from before)
Present a proposal for TP2 signaling parameters and associated conformance
testing at the September Meeting. The work must consider and provide tradeoff
information among component cost, test cost, and power penalties.
Reduction in power may be another outcome to consider.
Housekeeping
- Proposed agenda was approved (see below).
- No comments or changes to the previous notes (from 8/26 call).
Progress, technical discussions
- There were no new presentations this week.
- TP2 budget items
- Some degradations (or impairments) will be correctable by EDC, some
will not.
- Piers estimated that EDC can reduce correctable penalties by ~2/3
(compared to if they are not corrected).
- Need to focus on the larger degradations.
- Tom action to list potential TP2 impairments and
mechanisms and categorize them. Candidate categories include
correctable/not correctable, correlated/uncorrelated to the data (possibly
the same thing), or others that come to mind. This should help guide
simulations, experiments, budgeting, and metrics.
- Testing
- Discussed earlier proposal to capture waveform on scope to determine
rise/fall times, DDJ, etc. and/or run through simulated channel and EDC Rx
to determine a penalty.
- Patterns
- First thought was to use PRBS7 (or so) for fast capture and
simulation. May be able to test with shorter patterns for components,
but system testing requires 802.3ae patterns.
- Any section of PRBS31 would take way too long due to slow trigger
rate (~5 per second).
- Compromise may be to use (a portion of) Pattern 1 or Pattern 2 from
802.3ae (Table 52-21). According to that standard, they are 33792 bits
long (longer than I recalled, ~ length of PRBS15).
- For calibration of test equipment, may be able to use standard
shorter patterns. This comment seems mostly directed at TP3
setups.
- Scopes are getting better at determining or extracting a pattern
trigger. Tom action to talk to supplier(s) for
possibilities.
- Also talked about earlier proposal of mask test with square wave
pattern.
- Intent is to combine with above method. Above method would limit
correlated penalties, mask test would capture uncorrelated
penalties.
- Interest in both methods, but more work is required and
requested.
- 220 vs. 300 meters
- Confusion on what our real distance requirement will be. Suggested that
we proceed with both conditions and request clarity by Sept
meeting.
- Infineon believes 300 meters will require -LR specs (and that -LR specs
are sufficient). They hope to present something soon on this.
- We have only begun work to look at TP2 cost vs. metrics and penalty
tradeoffs with EDC-enabled systems. We should continue that work, review the
data, and see what it tells us about -LR or any other possibilities. We
should avoid drawing conclusions before we have to.
- Connector impact on dispersion may be significant. "Bad connectors and
220 meter link may be comparable to good connectors and 300 meter link." Led
to question - is 300 meters with bad connector s unachievable?
- Monte Carlo simulation work by channel group should help determine what
is real.
Future meeting
- Bookham plans to present 9/9, if ready.
- ClariPhy hopes to present soon, possibly 9/9.
- Tom action to follow up on prior offers to present from JDSU and
Opnext.
- Next call
-
Date: Thurs, 9/9/04 (regular day/time)
-
Time: 9:00 AM
-
Duration: 1:00 goal, 1:30 max
-
Number: 401-694-1515
-
Access code: 421721#
Tom Lindsay
ClariPhy Communications
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:18
PM
Subject: [10GMMF] Reminder for TP2 call,
9/2/04
All -
Meeting details (same numbers as before):
-
Date: Thurs, 9/2/04 (regular day/time)
-
Time: 9:00 AM
-
Duration: 1:00 goal, 1:30 max
-
Number: 401-694-1515
-
Access code: 421721#
Topics
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 8:59
AM
Subject: [10GMMF] Notes for TP2 call,
8/26/04
All - here are my notes for the 8/26 TP2 call. Please send comments or
corrections if needed.
Attendees (no order)
- Jesper Hanberg, Intel
- Jan Peeters Weem, Intel
- John Jaeger, Big Bear
- Lew Aronson, Finisar
- Yi Sun, OFS
- Yu Sun, Optium
- John Dallesasse, Emcore
- Bala Mayampurath, Vitesse
- Piers Dawe, Agilent
- Tom Lindsay, ClariPhy
- Others?
Summary objective (repeated from before)
Present a proposal for TP2 signaling parameters and associated
conformance testing at the September Meeting. The work must consider and
provide tradeoff information among component cost, test cost, and power
penalties.
Reduction in power may be another outcome to consider.
Housekeeping
- Proposed agenda was approved (see below).
- Previous notes (from 8/19 call) were approved.
Progress, technical discussions
There were no new presentations this week.
The only significant discussions involved follow-on to the Intel
presentation from the week before, 8/19. Jesper sent an email 8/26 that
addressed some of the questions posed from the 8/19 call.
- Laser modeling
- A slide was included in the 8/26 email that depicted a laser
response (perfect rectangular current waveform) with more peaking than
used in the modeling in the 8/19 presentation. Higher peaking was
created by reducing the gain compression coefficient and by reducing the
operating (now 50 mA) and modulation currents (now 20-80 mA). The latter
changes should also reduce ROF. The slide shows some important laser
values.
- Some comments were that ROF is high (shown at 14.6 GHz, try cases
closer to 10 GHz), that some lasers have less damping (more ringing),
and that the filtered mask limits could be used to set limits.
- The drive waveform in the 8/19 presentation used filtering but no
reflections (or multiple reflections).
- If anyone has suggestions on laser settings or drive waveforms, please
get in touch with Jesper.
- A MMSE method was used to determine the EDC coefficients.
- hanberg_1_0304 briefly mentions the method for determining BER. It
appears to use the signal to rms noise ratios for 8 binary triplets
at a slicer input.
- I suspect there are more questions on the details of these 2 methods
(speaking for myself, anyway...).
- A single fiber was used in the 8/19 presentation. It is the one with
the 22nd worse PIE-L response in the Cambridge model set (out of 65
fibers?), taken from the end with the greatest PIE-L value.
- Jesper acknowledged that his work did not include the effects of RIN,
but expected the additional impairment would be on the order of 1/2 dB.
- Intel did some investigation of more taps for FFE (up to 9), but did
not see much improvement compared to the 5 used in the 8/19 presentation.
Jesper believes the limitation may be due to laser nonlinearities. DFE
taps showed greatly improved performance over FFE.
- There was a question on why the results of some of the DFE
simulations were better than predicted by (ideal) PIE-D. Jesper thinks it
may be a combination of rounding errors and that the simulations were
done for a BER of 1E-9.
Next call (9/2, 9 AM Pacific time)
- Cost vs. performance studies (Opnext, Bookham)?
- Other presentations encouraged
- Cost trends
- Penalties and test metrics vs. parameters (and try to relate to cost
trends)
- Other?
- TP2 test metrics (test and methods)
Tom Lindsay ClariPhy Communications tlindsay@ieee.orgphone: (425)
775-7013 cell: (206) 790-3240
|