[802.3_B10K] Further considerations on DWDM compatible interfaces

[Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear b10k SG colleagues,

At last week’s b10k SG meeting I presented http://www.ieee802.org/3/B10K/public/17_11/stassar_b10k_01a_1117.pdf.

During the Q&A session it was suggested that there may be an option in between the 2 options described in my presentation for IEEE 802.3 to pursue, namely one where the DWDM black link channel is passive, not containing any optical amplifier(s), so only an optical mux and a demux.

As Pete Anslow clarified, the specification methodology for such a passive configuration is already defined in the in-force Recommendation G.698.1, freely available from https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.698.1-200911-I.

In a similar way as in-force G.698.2, the in-force G.698.1 provides single channel 2.5 and 10 Gbit/s interfaces onto a DWDM black link with the only difference that in G.698.1 the DWDM black link does not contain any optical amplifiers, whereas in G.698.2 it does. As a result, in G.698.2 the optical budget is specified in terms of OSNR, whereas in G.698.1 the optical budget is specified in a conventional way (similar to IEEE 802.3 specs).

I would like to further point out that the fundamental specification methodology relevant for the SG to evaluate with respect to DWDM compatibility would be the DWDM black link channel model in G.698.1 and G.698.2 with defined transfer characteristics, of which maximum spectral excursion and ripple are the most critical.

The specific PHY parameters (and associated values) for transmitters and receivers, some of which will be different for direct detect and coherent systems, that are under development currently in Q6/15, would seem less relevant for a Study Group and more relevant for a Task Force.

Kind regards,

Peter

 

Peter Stassar, 施笪安

Technical Director, 技术总监

Huawei Technologies Ltd, 华为技术有限公司

European Research Center, 欧洲研究所

Herikerbergweg 36, 1101 CM Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 20 4300 832

Mob: +31 6 21146286