mpo/mtp testing for 10 –100gb/s readiness · pdf file• the image is saved as a tiff...
TRANSCRIPT
MPO/MTPTesting for 10 – 100Gb/s Readiness
Mike KazemianSynergix International
New Ethernet Speeds Require New Methods For The Certification of Infrastructure for
10GbE, 40GbE und 100GbE
• Standards: Application, Cabling, Components, …• Field Testing
– Test Cords and Methods– EF … Encircled Flux– Test Regimes
• MTP/MPO Testing In The Field– ….for 40/100Gb/s Applications– … for 10Gb/s Applications
2
Agenda
Choosing the right limit ….. It’s often not simple
Component RequirementsComponent Requirements
Standards Based LimitsType λ (nm) Loss‐Limit Units / Comment
Applications
….the transmissionpath has to comply with the application or channel requirements
List is not complete!
IEEE 802.3: 10GBASE‐SR/SW 850 2.6 dB requires OF‐300IEEE 802.3: 10GBASE‐LR/LW 1310 6.2 dB requires OF‐2000ISO/IEC 8802‐3: 1000BASE‐SX 850 3.56 dB requires OF‐500
ISO/IEC 8802‐3: 1000BASE‐LX1300 2.35 dB requires OF‐5001310 4.56 dB requires OF‐2000
ISO/IEC 8802‐3: 100BASE‐FX 1300 11 dB requires OF‐2000ISO/IEC 14165‐111: Fibre Channel (FC‐PH) @1062 Mbit/sec,
850 4.0 dB requires OF‐5001310 6.0 dB requires OF‐2000
Channels… consists of 1 or more links + equip. /patch cords
OF‐300 / OF‐500 / OF‐2000Multi M. (max.300m/500m/2000m)
850 2.55 / 3.25 / 8.5
dB1300 3.25 / 2.25 / 4.5
OF‐300 / OF‐500 / OF‐2000Single M. (max. 300m/500m/2000m)
1310 1.8 / 2.0 / 3.51500 1.8 / 2.0 / 3.5
Links The loss limit is dependent on λ, length and connector/splice count. (min. 3 Components)
ComponentFiber
OM1/ ‐2/ ‐3/850 3.5
dB / km1300 1.5OS1 / OS2 both 1.0 / 0.4
Splice all all 0.3 dB / SpliceConnector all both 0.75/0.5/0.35 100% / 95% / 50%
Requirement for Field Testing
ISO/IEC only
TRC (Test Reference Cord)& Random Connector @ Link Ends
850/1300 0.3dB / Connection
1310/1500 0.5TRC & TRC
(periodic Check)850/1300 0.1
dB / Connection1310/1500 0.2
Region Channel / Link / Component ‐ Requirements Field Testing Requirements
International • ISO/IEC 11801 2002 AMD2 (2009)Information technology – Generic cabling for customer premises
• ISI/IEC 24702…‐ Generic Cabling for Industrial premises
• ISO/IEC 24764…‐ Generic Cabling for Data center premises
• ISO/IEC 15018…‐ Generic cabling for homes
ISO/IEC 14763‐3 (June 2006)Information technology – Implementation and operation of customer premises cabling – Part 3: Testing of optical fiber cabling.
Europe EN 50173‐x ”Family” Amd AB:2010Information technology ‐ Generic cabling systems• 50173‐1…Part 1: General requirements• 50173‐2...Part 2: Office premises• 50173‐3…Part 3: Industrial premises• 50173‐4…Part 4: Homes• 50173‐5…Part 5: Data Centers
EN 50346:2002 A2:2009Information technology ‐ Cabling installation – Testing of installed cabling.(Refers to 14763‐3 for all technical details)
USA ANSI/TIA‐568‐C.0‐2009Generic Telecommunications Cabling forCustomer PremisesC.1 Commercial Building ….C.2 Balanced Twisted‐Pair …Components StandardsC.3 Optical Fiber Cabling … Components Standard
ANSI/TIA‐455‐78‐B‐2002, Optical Fibers Part 1‐40: Measurement Methods and Test Procedures – Attenuation
ANSI/TIA/EIA‐455‐8‐2000, Measurement of Splice or Connector Loss and Reflectance Using an OTDR
Standards Overview
40/100 GbE Fiber Applications40GBASE‐SR4 40GBASE‐LR4 40GBASE‐FR
Mulitmode Single Mode
Source 4 x 10Gb VCSEL 4 x 10Gb Laser 1 x 40Gb Laser
Optics Parallel Simplex
Connnector MPO LC (or similar)
Wavelenght 850 nm 1271‐1331 nm 1550
Fiber OM3 OM4 OS2 OS2
Max Distance 100 m 150 m 10,000 m 2,000m
Loss Budget 1,9 dB 1,53 dB 6.7 dB 4.0 dB
100GBASE‐SR10 100GBASE‐LR4 100GBASE‐ER4
Mulitmode Single Mode
Source 10 x 10Gb VCSEL 4 x 10Gb Laser 1 x 40Gb Laser
Optics Parallel Simplex (4λ@ 25Gb)
Connnector MPO LC (or similar)
Wavelenght 850 nm 1300 nm (DWDM)
1550 nm (DWDM)
Fiber OM3 OM4 OS2 OS2
Max Distance 100 m 150 m 10,000 m 40,000m
Loss Budget 1,9 dB 1,53 dB 8.3 dB 18 dB
40/100GBase‐SR/LR/ER: Which ISO Channel supports it ?
Low Loss MPO …The Drivers
• “Zoned Data Centers”
Distributor in accordance with ISO/IEC 11801
Network access cabling system
Main distribution cabling system
Zone distribution cabling system
Equipm. cabling
Courtesy: TE Connectivity
Standard Methods
TIA‐568‐C
Tier‐1 Tier‐2
ISO 11801 AMD.1 / ISO/IEC 14763‐3
BASIC Test Regime EXTENDED Test Regime
LSPM: Light Source & Power Meter OTDR: Optical Time Domain Reflectometer
Fiber Optic Test Methods
• The two methods are complimentary !– OTDR based method does not replace the LSPM based solution
• Both methods have advantages and limitations
OLTS … Optical Loss Test System
• Measures a duplex fiber in both directions1. Measures the length2. Calculates the length dependent loss limit3. Measures the insertion loss4. Calculates the margin
• Optional 2nd step: Measure both fibers in the duplex link in both directions
LSPM versus OLTS
LSPM … Light Source & Power Meter
• Measures the insertion loss of a fiber path
• Length Dependent Limits and Margins need to be calculated manually
Losses at splices and connectors, including test equipment connectors:
NOTE: Coupling loss is the dominating contributor to the the overall link loss in premise and Data Center cabling
Sources of Attenuation: Coupling Losses
• Area mismatch
• Spacing loss
• Axis misalignment
• Angular misalignment
Reference Methods
1 JumperMethod B
2 JumperMethod A
3 JumperMethod C
• Test Reference Cords are not mandatory by TIA• Most manufacturers demand the most accurate 1 jumper method• The one jumper method always require a “non critical” connection on the meter• Other methods need to be used if the meter does have an ICA or if
the link different end‐faces on either end– There is a benefit to use a “Modified Method B” overcome the lack of an ICA.
#3 #2#1
#2#1
#1
#1
#2Link Under Test
Accuracy of the three reference methods
1 JumperMethode B
2 JumperMethode A
3 JumperMethode C
#3 #2#1
#2#1
#1
Cords /Ref. Method 1 Jumper 2 Jumper 3 Jumper
Reg. Patch Cords n
Test ReferenceCords
Hi risk of negative loss results !
• Encircled Flux (EF) is a way to define launch conditions…the final piece in the puzzle to reducing measurement uncertainty in the field.
• This is important because uncertainty is the enemy of ever tightening loss budgets!
Encircled Flux ‐Reducing multimode uncertainty
Source 1Over filled
Source 2Restricted or Under filled
Optical Source launch conditions impact the consistency and repeatability of Loss Measurements!!
• Different light sources may have different launch conditions• Previous standards for launch conditions, in the past CPR
(Coupling Power Ratio) and since 2006 MPD (Modal Power Distribution) (like MFM2) allowed for too much variation
Why the NEW EF STANDARD is NEEDED
How is the launch condition verified ?
CPR (Coupling Power Ratio) Pre 2006
MPD (Mode Power Distribution) Since 2006
EF (Encircled Flux) New
Principle: • A filter makes the light “visible” for the camera• The image is saved as a TIFF file• SW is used to evaluate the distribution of light within the fiber
Principle: • A filter makes the light “visible” for the camera• The image is saved as a TIFF file• SW is used to evaluate the distribution of light within the fiber
The power is compare with and without a 9μm cord with 30mm mode filer inserted
MPD vs. EF Relationship
Two EF compliant light sources+ #1 @ Under Filled Limit+ #2 @ Over Filled limit… may cause a variation of 10%
Two MPD compliant light sources+ #1 @ Under Filled Limit+ #2 @ Over Filled Limitmay cause a variation of 40%
Area of Interest Subject to
Fiber Miss‐Alignment
• Use an external mode conditioner instead of mandrels
How to make The Field Test EF compliant
100% EF compliant costly … 1k€ / pair
retrofits legacy testers
clumsy, bulky
Multiple versions: SC, LC, ST, etc…
No retrofit of worn plugs
Encircle Flux Common Questions From Customers
Q & A
“The DTX‐MFM2 is MPD compliant which allows for a variation of 40% in test results. Does that also apply for the DTX‐MFM2 & Mandrel”
1. The DTX‐MFM2 uses tuned light sources and 850nm/1300nm combiners2. The same instrument used to verify EF compliance is used to ensure a very
narrow band of variation in modal distribution3. The variation shown is less then between two compliant but marginal EF
compliant light sources
Q&A: What is the variability of DTX‐MFM2 & Mandrels ?
• When that LC connector breaks orwears out, it cannot be re‐terminatedin the field
• Re‐terminations need to be verified for EF compliance
• No minimum number of mating can be quote and wear tear will greatly depend on treatment and handling– Abrasive dust can destroy a brand new plug
Q&A: Can I replace the plug on an EF controller ?“ Can I replace the plug at the end on an EF controller and how many test can I perform ”
1. For the same reason the use of “Sacrificial Cords” dose not work EF is not assured at the end of the test cord
2. What would be needed is an “EF Transparent Cord” for this to work
Q&A: Can a EF Controller Be Integrate Into The Light Source ?
“ Why is the function of the EF controller not integrated into the light source? ”
Sacrificial cord
• Some believed the source should be a VCSEL –– Some standards used to allow them… – Some out of date project specifications require them…
• Reasoning– Use the same source type as the active equipment
• Problem– The optical loss limits in IEEE 802.3 are based on test equipment using
LEDs, same for ANSI/TIA and ISO/IEC– VCSELs are under filled – results in optimistic “best case” readings – Launch condition varies greatly from source to source
Q&A: Could / Should one test wit a VCSEL?
• Note 1): Within the uncertainty of a EF based measurement• Note 2): Only if the FAIL was with a slim margin
Q&A: What if I Use a DTX‐MFM2 & Mandrel Instead Of EF Controller ?
()
Retest 1)
Retest
Retest (2)
1. A Light Source with an EF compliant output2. An “EF Transparent TRC”• ... at an affordable price• … with TRC performance • … without a clumsy and heavy package
Wish LIST FOR EF COMPLIANT FIELD TESTING
?? ??
40/100 Gb/sIEEE 802.3ba
MPO - Future Proof Technology …Migration 10 – 100Mbps
28
Reuse the same MPO Trunk Cable
1G or 10G Cabling
40G Cabling
100G Cabling
29
Polarity ‐MPO/MTP System Type A
29
30
Polarity ‐MPO/MTP System Type B
30
31
Polarity ‐MPO/MTP System Type A, B & C
31
32
Polarity ‐MPO/MTP System “Other”
32
How were MPO fibers being tested until today?
Set Reference
Install Fan‐out
Test 12 timesComplex
TediousIncompletePolarity?
Test to Limit?
Documentation?
Wish List For a MPO/MTP Field Tester
1. Testing of all fibers in the link in one go2. Non critical MPO connector on the meter to
support the most accurate one jumper method
3. Switchable MPO source to verify polarity – System A, B, C, …. – Field terminated connectors
4. MPO Test Reference Cords with reference grade connectors
– A definition for reference grade MPO connectors !
5. EF Compliant Light Source
Trunk Cable Installation: Loss and Polarity Measurement –Setting the Reference (1 jumper if possible)
Trunk Cable Installation: Loss and Polarity Measurement
37
MPO/MTP Power Meter
MPO optical interface for 12 fibersMPO optical interface for 12 fibers
Power or loss on 12 fibers simultaneouslyPower or loss on 12 fibers simultaneously
Individual power or loss on single fiberIndividual power or loss on single fiber
Save power or loss measurements to LinkWareSave power or loss measurements to LinkWare
Report polarity per TIA‐568‐C.0Report polarity per TIA‐568‐C.0
Indicate if loss limit is exceeded.Indicate if loss limit is exceeded.
38
MPO/MTP Light Source
MPO optical interface for 12 fibersMPO optical interface for 12 fibers
Scan All automatically sources all fibersScan All automatically sources all fibers
Auto encodingAuto encoding
Stabilized optical signal on each fiberStabilized optical signal on each fiber
User selectable individual channelsUser selectable individual channels
Scan All enables polarity per TIA‐568‐C.0Scan All enables polarity per TIA‐568‐C.0
10 …100 Gb/sTrouble Shooting
Trouble Shooting• Phase 1: The test with a Light Source &
Power Meter identifies marginal/failing links and channels– MPO: The problematic fiber is
identified
• Schritt2: An OTDR identifies the problematic connection– A “Fan‐Out” cable adapts SC to MPO
Example: Localizing the “Bottle Neck”
• The total loss of 1.98dB is within the limit• The bottle neck is after 260m
Example : Correcting The Problem & Checking The Result
• The problem was solved by cleaning or swapping components• The bottle neck after 260m was eliminated
Thank you for your attention!
Questions?
43