10Gb/s EPON FEC - Coding gain vs power budget Contributors names Sept 2006

Introduction From July meeting FEC seems to be a mandatory part of the budget. The purpose of this presentation is to initiate discussion of using FEC to help 10G EPON power budgets. This first set of slides address following FEC issue other than framing: –FEC rates –Algorithms –Code gain –Latency issue

Downstream 29dB link budget SOA based Tx SOA based Rx FEC-IC based Rx PP: 1dB Loss 28dB Tx Rx Min: +13dBm Max: +15dBm PP: 1dB Loss 28dB Min: 0dBm Max: +4dBm PP: 1dB Loss 28dB Rx Sens: -16dBm Rx Sens: -29dBm Min: +1dBm Max: +5dBm Rx Sens: -28dBm(??) (Easy/margin with GFEC/EDC) (Challenging due to NF)

RS(255, 239) code: an example Simulated results Measured results

RS(255, 239) code: an explanation The performance of a given code is uniquely represented by input BER vs. output BER, or net coding gain (after adjusting noise BW penalty). Optical gain (in dBm) normally donot match directly to half of the coding gain (in dB). Optical gain depends on channel/Rx response –RS code: 6dB coding gain typically show 4dB optical gain RS codes is implemented in generic CMOS process

Common codes with std rates Coding gain obviously implementation dependant (slightly). 64B/66B code: No rate change as Gb/s; ~2.5dB coding gain, input BER=1E-7. RS(255, 239): 6-7% overhead, 6dB coding gain; input BER=1E-4. Enhanced FEC: 6-7% overhead same as RS(255, 239) (vendor proprietary); 8.5dB coding gain; input BER<1E-3.

Other codes in consideration FEC lowers BER at the expense of overhead Other RS codes: –RS(255, 247): 4% overhead –RS(255, 223): 12% overhead BCH codes (weaker): –BCH(8191, 8178): 0.15% overhead –BCH(8191, 8165): 0.32% overhead –BCH(8191, 8152): 0.48% overhead RS+BCH codes –RS(255, 239)+BCH(127,120): ~13% overhead

Latency issues Latency obviously depends on framing and implementation. RS codes potentially has total latency ~1us –Note: propagation in 300m fiber: ~1us In ethernet, preferable small block sizes to minimize buffer size. Some existing FEC IC with long blocks may has well over ~10um total latency.

Trade-off of rate vs. performance The group need to answer the following: What rate is acceptable? –Non-std rates may require re-qualify the optics for the performance in the new rate. How much coding gain is enough? –Need to run through various power budget scenarios What is the clear trade-off between FEC perf. and its implementation (overhead, complexity, latency)? –Good news: most codes doable in CMOS.

10 Gb/s PON FEC - Framing Contributors names Sept 2006

Introduction Presentations in July seemed to demonstrate general consensus on: –FEC is definitely needed for 10G –FEC should be at the lowest layer There are two parts to the FEC puzzle –‘Framing,’ or how to arrange the bits –‘Algorithm,’ or the actual math of FEC This set of slides concentrates on framing

FEC framing FEC will be applied at the lowest layer –Below the 64b66b sub-layer –Right before the PMA FEC sub-layer will be responsible for obtaining codeword lock, because without it, FEC is impossible –Frame lock must work with extensive errors –In the upstream, lock must work very fast 64b66b sub-layer will be handed aligned data, so there is no need for its own framing system

FEC framing structure issues There are several differently sized data objects in the 10G EPON technology that we should consider: –64b66b blocks, 6.4 ns long –MPCP time quanta, 16 ns long –FEC codeword, (yet to be determined) The simplest and most efficient system will –Arrange objects so sizes are related by ratios of small integers –Result in a final line-rate that is a small integer ratio of the input MAC rate

64b66b and time quanta The least common denominator of time quanta and 64b66b blocks is 32 ns –5 blocks –2 time quanta Regardless of FEC code choice, if we want to keep things neat, then time-quanta should always be specified in even numbers

RS code as an example For this presentation, we will consider the tried and true RS(239,255) code (and shortened variants) as a example code –This gives us a concrete set of code constraints to work out the method of solution –This is not meant to favor RS over other codes As the PMD analysis moves forward, the choice of FEC algorithm will get clearer However, the basic ideas presented here will remain the same

Form of FEC codeword A FEC codeword will contain three important items –Framing pattern –User data –FEC parity In continuous mode systems, framing pattern is typically short, and state machine with long memory is used to lock onto codewords In burst-mode systems, framing pattern is longer, to provide instant lock-on –This can occur once at the beginning of the frame, with no further framing structure required

Good codeword arrangements for 66b blocks Maximum number of 66b blocks that fit is 28 –1848 bits payload –40 bits synchronization –128 bits parity –252 total bytes: 9/8 line rate With an even number of quanta, 25 blocks fit –1650 bits payload –22 bits synchronization –128 bits parity –225 total bytes: 9/8 line rate

Choice of 64b66b encoding The 2 bit header in 64b66b is redundant, since FEC sub-layer will be aligning the data –Can reduce to 1 bit (the T-bit) to increase effciency Sounds good, but redundant bits in the payload could be used for auxilliary alignment purpose, so sending 66b blocks is not useless

Good codeword arrangements for 65b blocks Maximum number of 66b blocks that fit is 29 –1885 bits payload –17 bits synchronization –128 bits parity –2030 total bits: 35/32 line rate With an even number of quanta, 25 blocks fit –1625 bits payload –22 bits synchronization –128 bits parity –1775 total bits: 71/64 line rate

Downstream FEC synchronization In the downstream, any of the above mentioned framing lengths would work –We would adjust the state machine parameters to obtain whatever lock probabilities we wanted –For reference, 2^64 was considered a ‘good lock’ in the 66b system –2~4 sync patterns will produce similar results

Upstream FEC synchronization Two phases of synchronization Initial lock requires a larger and error-resistant sequence that can reliably produce a unique autocorrelation signal –For reference, merely 20 bits is recommended for G- PON operating at 1e-4 raw BER Maintenance is nearly redundant (protects against clock slips – how frequent are they?) but probably will be included to retain clock frequency harmonization