Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects

1. NOBEL meeting, Ipswich (BT) WP5, March 17-18, 2005 Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects Herbert Haunstein, Bernd Bollenz

2. Agenda / attendees 17th Tanya, Alexandros, Jonas, Piedro, Dominic, Andrew, Bernd, Gottfried, Stefano, Albert, Alfons, Yu Rong, Thomas, Marcello, Martin 18th Tanya, Alexandros, Jonas, Piedro, Dominic, Andrew, Bernd, Gottfried, Stefano, Albert, Alfons, Yu Rong, Thomas, Marcello, Martin Agenda: D19: Review PCAG: Results to be integrated into D19/D26 D26: Next steps CSG: Results achived so far D28: Goal / Time line / Contributions Quo Vadis WP5 ? AOB – Milestone M5.1 is due M15 – how to handle?

3. D19 Review • D19: Review going section by section with explanations from contributers. • Sec. 3: data input for traffic matrices to big to include, embed as Excel or ASCII list – Andrew will try the best way. Also consider to have separate documentsSome PMD data from T-Systems – Andrew will check with MatthiasNeed European Network traffic data, maybe TI can provide - Albert contact Antonio • Sec. 4: contribution from Acreo, LU, SIE for specific network segm., BT, NTUA, TI for more analytical appr. – how to combineMetro network: why use eFEC, try to increase amp. power and use standard FEC – Alfons to compareData rate with eFEC is 10.7GBit/s, use Gbits/s instead of GHzLong Haul: the influence of nonlinearites seems to be too low in the given results, will be hard/impossible to verify due to the lack of time (Jonas to provide more detailed information, Gottfried to check roughly for plausibility) - final conclusion will most probably not be found until the end of D19, but this topic should be clarified.

4. D19 Review (cont.) Ultra long Haul: FEC paragraph can be removed, 4.2.3: Power budget in Yu-Rong’s table is not meant in the sense of per channel power budget, but in the sense of Q factor budget – make a note, figure fs2 should show “nm” instead of “THz”, explain what is shown, especially the effects at the edges – Gottfried/Thomas to change, 4.2.4: sec. 4.2.4.2 to be moved to Dominic’s sec. 6, 4.2.4.6 will be considered to be moved to sec. 6, or shifted to D26 – Tanya, Dominic to take care.4.2.6 and 4.2.7 will be deleted4.3: Marconi input not clear enough (setup, scenarios, worst case) – Cornelius to state probability (why so negative) • Sec. 5: 5.1.1.2: FT contribution – to be reviewed by all, 5.1.1.4: Rework chapter (OSNR->Q, title of chapters, introduction), 5.2.2: aspects already covered in earlier chap. – Alfons to remove, 5.3: perf. mon. activity WP4/5 not finished, no results to be put into D19 – remove chapter. • Sec. 6: figure caption should be adapted – Dominic, 6.2: add some text to the model descriptions (FIGSCHUPKE2b ) to make it clearer – Albert, Dominic, 6.3: detailed discussion took place, short summary in D19, detailed study in D26 – Dominic to work out,

5. D19 Review (cont.) • Sec. 8: There is not really a conclusion at this stage, Andrew will propose some sort of summary – All (!) to review asap,

6. D26 Next steps • Presentation given by Dominc – contains timeline, structure, contributions, … (will be sent around separately) • The deliverable description says ”experimentally verification”, but it was assumed at project start-up, that no experimental work can be carried out (same issue in D20) – we need to clarify at least with the with NOBEL management, how “interpretable” the text is – Herbert, Gottfried to have a phone call two weeks from now ;-)) • Editors of subchapters should be assigned asap, due to the not known Lucent contribution this is postponed until after Easter

7. PCAG • Presentation given by Dominic (will be sent around separately) • Discussion about network dynamics: (Albert) not all paths reasonable, although they are feasible, use only k (k=3…5) shortest (edge)disjoint paths (90% of all possile) for routing calculation. Should Albert do calculation for various k (2 to 5)? Martin volunteers to do calculation, maybe k=4 will be sufficient. • Basic results to be reported into D19, detailed analysis to be covered in D26. • Simple network design: Lucent contribution – to be clarified (Bernd) • Contribution to SPM, Raman – Gottfried, Alex • Discussion about regeneration should be continued offline • Contribution to NOC – NOBEL contributions are highly appreciated (NOC will use NOBEL logo) – to be considered offline

8. CSG • Presentation given by Martin (will be distributed separately) • OPM output not to be included in D26 • Questions to WP5 to be answered

9. D28 • Presentation given by Bernd (attached to these minutes) • Bullet item list is going to be extended and distributed shortly with the request for comments and possible contributions (maybe early conference call)

10. AOB How to handle milestones: milestones seem to be project internal checkpoints, to verify the reach of planned achievements. It has to be checked with Marco, if a special report is needed (not seen at the moment – Gottfried), for WP5 the milestones are related to the deliverables. So no further action expected – Herbert to contact Marco. Quo vadis discussion not re-started, with D19 almost finalized, D26 having been outlined and scheduled, WP5 seems to be well focused. Contributions to publications:Creating a book out of the deliverables is still an opportunity, Alex is willing to do the main work, need to find out who wants to participateECOC: Tanya has some results that could be demonstrated, Siemens is considering some input

11. WP5 Wrap up, Feb 18th D19: Deliverable already in a very good state, latest actions and timeline defined D26: Structure defined, draft contributions identified, schedule presented and accepted (see Dominics presentation) CSG (Martin): Detailed presentation of the current status and the further work, “some question to WP5” should be answered PCAG (Dominic): Tasks are defined, discussion about “k” to be continued (offline), Lucent contribution to be clarified, NOC contribution (invited !) How to handle milestones (?): Maybe no issue (for WP5) but needs to be checked D28: Be aware, that something is still coming 

12. Appendix • D28 presentation

13. WP5 D28 - Goals D19 : Static Networks D26 : Dynamic Networks • D28 : Domain Oriented Approach (static and dynamic) • How ‘big’ could / should a domain be? • O-E-O vs. All Optical – cost comparison of long path lengths • Furthermore: create specifications for components (and subsystems) based on the results from D19/D26 • What else (keep continuity from D26)? • Connection to “NOBEL II” (Gottfried)?

14. Schedule for D28 (M24), Lead: LUC Coordinate with deliverable D26 • Prepare „bullet items“ list April 05 • Request for comments, define contributions • Very first TOC (and revised bullet items list) May 05 • Face-to-face meeting (Munich @ Plenary) June 05 We are here