CWDM solution for 500m SMF economical feasibility 2.3

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CWDM solution for 500m SMF economical feasibility 2.3"

髦粮叮杜
5 years ago
Views:

1 CWDM Solution for 500m SMF Economical Feasibility Tek Ming Shen, Xueyan zheng, Changzheng Su, Bo Li.

2 List of Supporters Yurii Vlasov IBM Douglas M Gill IBM Junjie Li China Telecom Lei Wang China Mobile Yunbo Li China Mobile Lu Huang China Mobile William Szeto Xtera Haiyi Zhang CATR Wenyu Zhao CATR Guangquan Wang China Unicom Ryan Yu Oplink Winston Way NeoPhotonics Osa Mok InnoLight Bill Lee InnoLight Stefan Rochus CyOptics Norman Kwong BinOptics Malcolm Green BinOptics Song Shang Semtech Frank Chang Vitesse Ryan Latchman Mindspeed Tom Lindsay ClariPhy Page 2

3 Outline Summary of Previous Studies CWDM solution cost analysis Transceivers Cost Double Link Cost CWDM module cost reduction analysis CWDM Link Budget Proposal Conclusions Page 3

4 Straw Poll in Jan 2013 meeting CWDM gained the most support as 100G 500m SMF solution From the straw polling, it is clear that technical feasibility is well established for CWDM. This presentation is an additional demonstration of economical feasibility and broad support. Page 4

5 CWDM is a low cost and low power solution for 100G >500m optical interface We propose CWDM as 100G, >500m optical interface because CWDM enables 1. Use uncooled packaging technology, Chip on Board package combining with hybrid integration, CWDM transceivers can be about 62% lower cost than LR4 transceivers; 2. Use uncooled packaging technology for transceiver, CWDM can have low power consumption satisfying QSFP package requirement; 3. SMF duplex solution allows use of existing fiber, save on PSM installation cost; 4. An optical mux/demux solution inside the transceivers instead of passing to customers the PSM handling issue; 5. No FEC to avoid latency; 6. SMF duplex for low link cost. Page 5

6 Outline Summary of Previous Studies CWDM solution cost analysis Transceivers Cost Double Link Cost CWDM module cost reduction analysis CWDM Link Budget Proposal Conclusions Page 6

7 Cost Analysis of LWDM, CWDM and PSM4 Transceivers (No Link Cost) Applies all potential cost reduction measures in our cost analysis on LWDM, CWDM and PSM4. Cost analyses are projected cost with all these measures realized in 2~3 years time frame. In our transceiver cost analysis, reference all costs to LWDM with similar cost reduction paths, including volume and learning curves in 2~3 years time frame. Page 7

8 Relative Cost of LR4, CWDM and PSM4 Transceivers (No Link Cost) After applying all potential cost reduction measures: Cost reduced LR4 CWDM PSM4 Transceivers cost Cost reduction 62% 68% Cost Comparison of Transceivers (no link fiber) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% LWDM LR4 COB & Hybrid CWDM COB & Hybrid PSM4 COB & Hybrid Page 8

9 Outline Summary of Previous Studies CWDM solution cost analysis Transceivers Cost Double Link Cost CWDM module cost reduction analysis CWDM Link Budget Proposal Conclusions Page 9

10 Cost Analysis of Double Link Cost Cost analysis of double link cost including transceivers w/wo FEC and cabling cost of LWDM, CWDM and PSM4 using Cost Centroid Length (CCL) methodology. Page 10

11 Carrier IP CCL 0km to 2km Sector IP channel Length Percentage 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Length (km) CCL = 1 km We shall use 1km for our cost analysis of the Carrier IP market for the objective. Page 11

12 Data Center Cost Centroid Length We shall use data center Cost Centroid Length of 200m as reported in + kolesar_01a_0512. Page 12

CCL of Data Center, Carrier IP and 802.3 Objective Double-Link 1km 2km 6.5 12 + cole_01a_0512 26 48 Data Center using relative cabling cost at CCL = 200m 200m 2-f OS2 double-link channel = 1.

13 CCL of Data Center, Carrier IP and Objective Double-Link 1km 2km cole_01a_ Data Center using relative cabling cost at CCL = 200m 200m 2-f OS2 double-link channel = m 8-f OS2 double-link channel = 7 + kolesar_01a_0512 Carrier IP using relative cabling cost at CCL = 1km 1km 2-f OS2 double-link channel = 6.5 1km 8-f OS2 double-link channel = using relative cabling cost at objective > 500m 500m 2-f OS2 double-link channel = m 8-f OS2 double-link channel = 10 Page 13

14 Relative Total Link Cost at CCL=200m of Data Center Cost Reduced LR4 CWDM PSM4 Total Link Cost m Double-link Total Link Cost 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% LWDM LR4 COB & Hybrid CWDM COB & Hybrid PSM4 COB & Hybrid Cost Reduced LR4 CWDM PSM4 Transceivers cost Data Com using relative cabling cost at CCL = 200m 200m 2-f OS2 double-link channel = m 8-f OS2 double-link channel = 7 + cole_02_ kolesar_01a_0512 Page 14

15 Relative Total Link Cost at >500m of Objective Cost Reduced LR4 CWDM PSM4 Total Link Cost m Double-link Total Link Cost 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% LWDM LR4 COB & Hybrid CWDM COB & Hybrid PSM4 COB & Hybrid Cost Reduced LR4 CWDM PSM4 Transceivers cost using relative cabling cost at objective > 500m 500m 2-f OS2 double-link channel = m 8-f OS2 double-link channel = 10 Page 15

16 Relative Total Link Cost at CCL=1km of Carrier IP Cost Reduced LR4 CWDM PSM4 Total Link Cost km Double-link Total Link Cost 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% LWDM LR4 COB & Hybrid CWDM COB & Hybrid PSM4 COB & Hybrid Cost Reduced LR4 CWDM PSM4 Transceivers cost IP channel using relative cabling cost at CCL = 1km 1km 2-f OS2 double-link channel = 6.5 1km 8-f OS2 double-link channel = 26 Page 16

17 Relative Total Link Cost at 2km of Carrier IP (for information only). Cost Reduced LR4 CWDM PSM4 Total Link Cost km Double-link Total Link Cost 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% LWDM LR4 COB & Hybrid CWDM COB & Hybrid PSM4 COB & Hybrid Cost Reduced LR4 CWDM PSM4 Transceivers cost IP channel = 2km (for information only) 2km 2-f OS2 double-link channel = 12 2km 8-f OS2 double-link channel = 48 Page 17

18 Summary of cost analysis Summary of cost analysis CWDM and PSM4 transceivers have about the same cost, with LR4 cost about 2.5 times higher. For Data Center market at CCL=200m CWDM and PSM4 solutions have about the same total link cost, with LR4 total link cost about 2.4 times higher. For Objective of >500m, including the Carrier IP market, CWDM has the lowest total link cost. Page 18

19 Advantage of CWDM over PSM4 For the Objective >500m, which covers markets such as carrier IP and enterprise, CWDM link cost is lower than PSM4. CWDM solution use duplex fiber, which allows use of existing fiber in data centers and enterprises, where the fibers are already installed. No FEC in CWDM solution means no latency issue. From system point of view, placing FEC on the board is not an acceptable solution, as it presents interoperability issue. Furthermore, putting the FEC on line cards makes the line cards application specific and hence segment the market, and makes the line card more expensive. Page 19

20 Outline Summary of Previous Studies CWDM solution cost analysis Transceivers Cost Double Link Cost CWDM module cost reduction analysis CWDM Link Budget Proposal Conclusions Page 20

21 Further Cost Reduction in Transceivers in CWDM compared with Cost Reduced LR4 COB & Others further cost saving CWDM-Si optical LWDM-LR4 100% (after all potential cost saving measures) Presence of TEC prevents extensive use of cost reduction measures Presence of TEC prevents these cost reduction measures from being applied to LR4. PSM 4-SI COB & Others further cost saving CWDM PSM4 Integration further cost saving Uncooled Packaging further cost saving Integration further cost saving Uncooled Packaging further cost saving Page 21

22 Cost Reduction Opportunities in CWDM compared with LR4 (1) Uncooled Packaging Cost reducing item LWDM CWDM TEC Yes No Assembly TEC assembly and parts No TEC Assembly Testing Control circuit TEC related testing 1. Need TEC automatic temperature control circuit; 2. Need TEC driver chips No TEC related testing, including TEC aging 1. Absence of TEC automatic temperature control circuit; 2. No TEC driver chips yield Impact on yield due to TEC failure No yield impact on TEC failure Page 22

23 Cost Reduction Opportunities in CWDM compared with LR4 (2) O/E Integration Cost reducing item LWDM CWDM O/E integration Package type Package size Packaging process Presence of TEC prevents extensive OEIC integration Discrete piece part type of packaging TEC drives large package size and high cost Complicated packaging processes Removing TEC enables extensive OEIC integration Chip set type packaging Small package size and low cost Simple chip set packaging processes Page 23

24 Cost Reduction Opportunities in CWDM compared with LR4 (3) COB and others Cost reducing item LWDM CWDM COB Gold Box Assembly Yield Wavelength precision Presence of TEC prevents extensive CoB packaging Existing of high cost Gold Boxes, major contribution to overall cost Hermetic Seal Package Impact on yield due to hermetic seal leakage Need more precise wavelength control, resulting in lower yield in wavelength sensitive components Removing TEC enables CoB package in Tx side, the costly part in the whole transceiver No Gold Box 1. Non-hermetic seal package option; 2. Save on absence of leakage tests Absence of hermetic seal issues Relaxed wavelength control, resulting in higher yield in wavelength sensitive components Page 24

CWDM enables low power consumption and high density optical modules QSFP Power consumption:<24 W Density: 1 or 2 port system Power consumption:<12

5 W Density: >20 port system CWDM is not only saving TEC related cost, but also: Makes monolithic or high density O/E integration possible,

25 CWDM enables low power consumption and high density optical modules QSFP Power consumption:<24 W Density: 1 or 2 port system Power consumption:<12 W Density: >8 port system Power consumption:<5 W Density: 16 port system Power consumption:<3.5 W Density: >20 port system CWDM is not only saving TEC related cost, but also: Makes monolithic or high density O/E integration possible, without heat dumping to TEC It further reduces cost and power consumption of CFP4 module It enables low cost and low power consumption QSFP module which has the highest density for this application. Page 25

26 Outline Summary of Previous Studies CWDM solution cost analysis Transceivers Cost Double Link Cost CWDM module cost reduction analysis CWDM Link Budget Proposal Conclusions Page 26

27 CWDM GBASE Link Budget Proposal Transmitter and Receiver Characteristics IEEE Std 802.3ba 100GBASE-LR4 100GBASE-CWDM Parameter 10km 500m Unit Signaling rate, each lane (range) ± 100 ppm ± 100 ppm Gbd Lane wavelength (range) (nm) to to to to to to to to Optical modulation amplitude (OMA), each lane (min) dbm Launch power in OMA minus TDP, each lane, (min) dbm Transmitter and dispersion penalty (TDP), each lane (max) db Extinction ratio (min) 4 4 db Receiver sensitivity (OMA), each lane (max) dbm Link Power Budget IEEE Std 802.3ba 100GBASE-LR4 100GBASE-CWDM Unit Parameter 10km 500m Power budget (for maximum TDP) db Operating distance km Channel insertion loss a db Allocation for penalties (for maximum TDP) b db Additional insertion loss allowed 0 0 db a The channel insertion loss is calculated using maximum distance of 0.5km and fiber attenuation of 0.5dB/km at nm plus an allocation for connection and splice loss of 3.75dB b Assumes 1dB CD max penalty and 1.2dB other penalties. Page 27

28 Outline Summary of Previous Studies CWDM solution cost analysis Transceivers Cost Double Link Cost CWDM module cost reduction analysis CWDM Link Budget Proposal Conclusions Page 28

29 Conclusions CWDM solution is the most potential economical solution for NG100GE using SMF at least 500m reach, offering: Lowest link cost; Small size and low power consumption to support up 40 ports in 10U front panel(qsfp ); No FEC means no concern of latency issue; Reach is at least 500m; Wide potential market: Data Center and Carrier IP, Enterprise markets. Compatibility of CWDM with installed-fiber base in Data Center avoids new parallel fiber installation and benefits upgrading existing networks. Page 29

30 Thank you Page 30

PowerPoint Presentation

PowerPoint Presentation Current Status of the 10G-EPON Power Budget and Improvement David Li, Hisense-Ligent dli@ligentphotonics.com Ligent Supporters Bo Wang, China Telecom David Li, Ligent Photonics Frank Chang, Vitesse Corp.