RE: [EFM] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P

[Sergiu Rotenstein <SRotenstein@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rob,

You're right. I think that all of us are pointing in the same direction 
and this is encouraging. That means that we can focus our efforts into 
one acceptable solution.
Sergiu 

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 5:59 PM
To: Sergiu Rotenstein; Jerry Radcliffe; 'Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx';
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-p2p@majordomo.ieee.org;
bob.barret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; doravv@xxxxxxxxxx;
FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hans.mickelsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx;
n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx; PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sasaki144@xxxxxxx;
schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx; 'Sergiu Rotenstein (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P


Sergiu,

If the legacy analog TV was not an issue, wouldn't ~1550nm range be a 
better wavelength range for PON as well?

Thank you,
Roy Bynum

At 03:45 PM 2/15/2002 -0800, Sergiu Rotenstein wrote:

>The Video overlay at 1550 nm is a very important requirement in any PMD
that
>
>the group will define. That's why the PON migrated to 1310/1490.
>A 1310 bidirectional solution provides the easiest integration with the
1550
>nm overlay.
>It is today and in the future the most affordable solution.
>
>Keep in mind that the major drawback of the 1310 nm bidirectional solution
-
>the reflection problem - is significant in old infrastructures that is not
>build based on specific
>requirements of single wavelength bidirectional. In the vast majority of
the
>cases the
>FTTH distribution network, spanning from the PoP to the subscribers will be
>new. In most
>of the cases the reflection problem may be solved by having at each edge a
>10 ft.
>section/jumper with SC/APC connectors on both sides. The rest of the
>infrastructure may be
>just UPC.
>
>In addition I hope that the same approach (1310 nm bidirectional) will be
>accepted for
>GbE P2P..
>
>Sergiu
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Radcliffe [mailto:JRadcliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 9:17 AM
>To: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
>stds-802-3-efm-p2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bob.barret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; doravv@xxxxxxxxxx; FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>hans.mickelsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jerry Radcliffe; jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx;
>mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>sasaki144@xxxxxxx; schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx;
>wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: [EFM] RE: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
>
>
>
>Thomas,
>
>There is one additional consideration which you did not include in your
>matrix. This has to do with compatibility with other transport.
>Specifically, 1500nm to 1550nm overlays.
>
>There will be applications in the future where a service provider will
>desire to add other services, such as video, onto the same fiber. With a
>1300nm system this will be relatively painless to do. The 1300nm and 1550nm
>windows may be easily separated with widely available coarse WDM filters.
>
>On the other hand, a system using 1310nm and 1490nm to 1550nm in the other
>direction is more complicated. The separation of the wavelengths will
>require a more sophisticated filter and tighter wavelength control on the
>longer wavelength laser. If this PMD also applies to 100M then this will be
>the difference between an FP and a DFB laser.
>
>In this area I would give the single wavelength option a 1.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jerry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:25 AM
>To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-p2p@majordomo.ieee.org;
>bob.barret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; doravv@xxxxxxxxxx;
>FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hans.mickelsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>jradcliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx;
>mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx; PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sasaki144@xxxxxxx;
>schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
>
>
>Hello All,
>
>First off I apologise for a blanket bomb approach with sending out this
>e-mail but
>I have my reasons, as will become clear below.
>
>As most of you will know, I am currently co-ordinating the development
>of a single fibre, single wavelength PMD proposal for P2P links.
>During a recent discussion of this work, it became clear that a number of
>people
>were unaware of what was happening or still unclear of some of the
technical
>issues involved. Several questions arose
>which had already been answered in the course of dedicated telephone
>conferences and
>some new issues were also raised.
>
>Of course this discussion is very good for the quality of the standard.
>However,
>in the interest of progress and completion of a baseline proposal for
March,
>it
>is essential that people allay any concerns they may have in the interim
and
>go
>into the meeting feeling ready to make an informed decision.
>
>I would therefore ask people who have an opinion (or concern) in this
>direction
>to speak up, raise the issues and avoid further surprises in St Louis.
>
>Arising from the aforementioned discussions was the idea that a 2
wavelength
>PMD may be an alternative approach. In order to facilitate comparison of
the
>
>two ideas, a matrix was proposed which I have included here in a somewhat
>modified
>form. I divided the table into Today and Future, the former represent
>current laser sources (FP and DFB)
>and the later assuming the use of VCSELs, be that at 1310, 1490 or 1550 nm.
>I dislike the 1-10
>approach of comparing as this is too subjective, rather a binary 0 or 1
>representing the better solution
>for a particular criteria. In some cases there are no differences and both
>receive 0. The 'points'
>are added and a comparison may be made.  NOTE, this will not be the basis
of
>the decision, rather an aid
>to objective comparison. I have included comments behind each issue cells
>detailing my evaluation.
>
>So, speak up, play with the table, add issues if necessary, send it back to
>me,
>get on the telephone conferences.
>
>Best regards and looking forward to further progress.
>
>Tom and the P2P group
>
>  <<Comparison matrix for 1 and 2 wavelength PMDs.xls>>
>
>
>This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
>contain confidential information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure
>or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not an intended recipient,
please
>contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the message.
>
>
>
>
>information contained in this electronic mail is privileged and
>confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
>above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
>communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in
>error, please immediately notify Disclaimer@xxxxxxxxxx Thank you.



information contained in this electronic mail is privileged and
confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in
error, please immediately notify Disclaimer@xxxxxxxxxx Thank you.