Steven Searcy and Sorin Tibuleac 
ADVA Optical Networking, Norcross, GA, USA 
14 October 2014 
Nonlinear Impact of Diverse 
Optical Routing in Uncompensated 
120 Gb/s PM-QPSK Links
IEEE Photonics Conference 2 2014, paper TuF1.4 
• Assessing transmission performance for DWDM systems 
• Common assumption in analyzing system performance (esp. nonlinear 
effects) is that all channels co-propagate over entire link 
• Many deployed point-to-point systems match this configuration 
Introduction & Motivation 
Purely 
Point-to-Point 
System 
(No Add/Drop)
IEEE Photonics Conference 3 2014, paper TuF1.4 
• Assessing transmission performance for DWDM systems 
• Common assumption in analyzing system performance (esp. nonlinear 
effects) is that all channels co-propagate over entire link 
• Many deployed point-to-point systems match this configuration 
• However, many deployed systems have a substantial degree of add/drop 
traffic and may behave differently  investigate this scenario 
Introduction & Motivation 
Network with 
Add/Drop 
traffic at 
ROADM nodes 
along path
IEEE Photonics Conference 4 2014, paper TuF1.4 
• Changes in add/drop conditions have been shown to have 
substantial impact on nonlinear tolerance in CD-compensated 
10G systems; effect is strongly dependent on residual CD 
Dispersion compensated systems 
Figure from [3] T. Zami, et al., Proc. ECOC 2009, paper 1.5.2
IEEE Photonics Conference 5 2014, paper TuF1.4 
• Nonlinear performance in uncompensated system often analyzed 
based on assumption of Gaussian nonlinear noise [1] 
• These underlying conditions are not always met with frequent add/drop 
• Add channels may have zero initial CD if originating at Add node, or 
some positive CD accumulated on a different path in mesh network 
Dispersion uncompensated systems 
Figure from [5] F. Vacondio, et 
al., Opt. Express 20(2), 2012.
IEEE Photonics Conference 6 2014, paper TuF1.4 
Experimental configuration 
• Commercial 120 Gb/s PM-QPSK transceiver with real-time DSP 
• Recirculating Loop with all-EDFA amplification, four spans 
TrueWave-RS fiber, WSS every two spans for optional add/drop
IEEE Photonics Conference 7 2014, paper TuF1.4 
Test conditions 
• 19x100G channels on 50 GHz grid (test channel + 18 neighbors) 
• 50GHz channel slots adjacent to test channel are left empty, to eliminate 
filtering on test channel in all cases  optical filtering may produce 
complex interactions with nonlinear effects [4] (left for further study) 
• Four different test cases: 
• A: No Add/Drop (all channels co-propagate) 
• B: Add/Drop all neighbors every 4 spans 
• C: Add/Drop all neighbors every 2 spans 
• C-PD: same as C, with Add channels pre-dispersed 
• Initially passed through 1 span of ULAF (~2000 ps/nm pre-dispersion)
IEEE Photonics Conference 8 2014, paper TuF1.4 
Nonlinear OSNR Penalty results 
• Baseline case—no add/drop, all channels co-propagate
IEEE Photonics Conference 9 2014, paper TuF1.4 
Nonlinear OSNR Penalty results 
• ~0.75-1.0 dB nonlinear benefit (@1 dB OSNR penalty) 
from Add/Drop of all neighbors every 4 spans
IEEE Photonics Conference 10 2014, paper TuF1.4 
Nonlinear OSNR Penalty results 
• ~1.0-1.25 dB benefit from Add/Drop of all neighbors every 2 spans 
 More frequent add/drop only produces incremental improvement (0.25dB)
IEEE Photonics Conference 11 2014, paper TuF1.4 
Nonlinear OSNR Penalty results 
• Pre-dispersion on add signals greatly reduces nonlinear benefit 
Higher input CD degrades NL tolerance, esp. on NZ-DSF [1,5,6]
IEEE Photonics Conference 12 2014, paper TuF1.4 
• Nonlinear benefit from frequent add/drop  up to 1.25 dB shown 
for add/drop of all neighbors every 2 spans 
• Much of the add/drop nonlinear benefit is due to reduced PAPR 
when add signals have zero initial CD 
• Topics for further study 
• Behavior with combined nonlinearity and optical filtering 
• Filtering penalty will at least partially offset nonlinear benefit? 
• Behavior with other fiber types besides NZ-DSF 
• Less impact from pre-dispersion over higher-dispersion fiber? (e.g. SSMF) 
• Other modulation formats 
• Mixed QPSK-OOK networks? 
• Next-gen 16QAM/8QAM? 
Conclusions
SSearcy@advaoptical.com 
Thank You 
Questions?
IEEE Photonics Conference 14 2014, paper TuF1.4 
• [1] P. Poggiolini, G. Bosco, A. Carena, V. Curri, Y. Jiang, and F. Forghieri, “The GN-Model of Fiber Non- 
Linear Propagation and its Applications,” J. Lightwave Technol. 32(4), pp. 694–721, February 2014. 
• [2] T. Zami, A. Morea, and N. Brogard, “Impact of routing on the transmission performance in a 
partially transparent optical network,” Proc. OFC/NFOEC, paper JThA50 (2008). 
• [3] T. Zami, P. Henri, L. Lorcy, and C. Simonneau, “Impact of the optical routing on the transmission 
in transparent networks,” Proc. ECOC, paper 1.5.2 (2009). 
• [4] Y. Ye, G. Goeger, E. Zhou, S. Zhang, and X. Xu, “Interplay of Filtering and Nonlinear Transmission 
in Coherent Uncompensated DWDM System,” Proc. OFC/NFOEC, paper OM3B.4 (2013). 
• [5] F. Vacondio, O. Rival, C. Simonneau, E. Grellier, A. Bononi, L. Lorcy, J.-C. Antona, and S. Bigo, 
“On nonlinear distortions of highly dispersive optical coherent sytsems,” Opt. Express 20(2), p. 1022- 
1032, Jan. 2012. 
• [6] X. Liu and S. Chandrasekhar, “Experimental Study of the Impact of Dispersion on PDM-QPSK and 
PDM-16QAM Performance in Inhomogeneous Fiber Transmission,” Proc. ECOC, paper P.4.17 (2013). 
• [7] S. Searcy and S. Tibuleac, “Impact of Channel Add/Drop on Nonlinear Performance in 
Uncompensated 100G Coherent Systems,” submitted to OFC 2015. 
References

Nonlinear Impact of Diverse Optical Routing in Uncompensated 120 Gb/s PM-QPSK Links

  • 1.
    Steven Searcy andSorin Tibuleac ADVA Optical Networking, Norcross, GA, USA 14 October 2014 Nonlinear Impact of Diverse Optical Routing in Uncompensated 120 Gb/s PM-QPSK Links
  • 2.
    IEEE Photonics Conference2 2014, paper TuF1.4 • Assessing transmission performance for DWDM systems • Common assumption in analyzing system performance (esp. nonlinear effects) is that all channels co-propagate over entire link • Many deployed point-to-point systems match this configuration Introduction & Motivation Purely Point-to-Point System (No Add/Drop)
  • 3.
    IEEE Photonics Conference3 2014, paper TuF1.4 • Assessing transmission performance for DWDM systems • Common assumption in analyzing system performance (esp. nonlinear effects) is that all channels co-propagate over entire link • Many deployed point-to-point systems match this configuration • However, many deployed systems have a substantial degree of add/drop traffic and may behave differently  investigate this scenario Introduction & Motivation Network with Add/Drop traffic at ROADM nodes along path
  • 4.
    IEEE Photonics Conference4 2014, paper TuF1.4 • Changes in add/drop conditions have been shown to have substantial impact on nonlinear tolerance in CD-compensated 10G systems; effect is strongly dependent on residual CD Dispersion compensated systems Figure from [3] T. Zami, et al., Proc. ECOC 2009, paper 1.5.2
  • 5.
    IEEE Photonics Conference5 2014, paper TuF1.4 • Nonlinear performance in uncompensated system often analyzed based on assumption of Gaussian nonlinear noise [1] • These underlying conditions are not always met with frequent add/drop • Add channels may have zero initial CD if originating at Add node, or some positive CD accumulated on a different path in mesh network Dispersion uncompensated systems Figure from [5] F. Vacondio, et al., Opt. Express 20(2), 2012.
  • 6.
    IEEE Photonics Conference6 2014, paper TuF1.4 Experimental configuration • Commercial 120 Gb/s PM-QPSK transceiver with real-time DSP • Recirculating Loop with all-EDFA amplification, four spans TrueWave-RS fiber, WSS every two spans for optional add/drop
  • 7.
    IEEE Photonics Conference7 2014, paper TuF1.4 Test conditions • 19x100G channels on 50 GHz grid (test channel + 18 neighbors) • 50GHz channel slots adjacent to test channel are left empty, to eliminate filtering on test channel in all cases  optical filtering may produce complex interactions with nonlinear effects [4] (left for further study) • Four different test cases: • A: No Add/Drop (all channels co-propagate) • B: Add/Drop all neighbors every 4 spans • C: Add/Drop all neighbors every 2 spans • C-PD: same as C, with Add channels pre-dispersed • Initially passed through 1 span of ULAF (~2000 ps/nm pre-dispersion)
  • 8.
    IEEE Photonics Conference8 2014, paper TuF1.4 Nonlinear OSNR Penalty results • Baseline case—no add/drop, all channels co-propagate
  • 9.
    IEEE Photonics Conference9 2014, paper TuF1.4 Nonlinear OSNR Penalty results • ~0.75-1.0 dB nonlinear benefit (@1 dB OSNR penalty) from Add/Drop of all neighbors every 4 spans
  • 10.
    IEEE Photonics Conference10 2014, paper TuF1.4 Nonlinear OSNR Penalty results • ~1.0-1.25 dB benefit from Add/Drop of all neighbors every 2 spans  More frequent add/drop only produces incremental improvement (0.25dB)
  • 11.
    IEEE Photonics Conference11 2014, paper TuF1.4 Nonlinear OSNR Penalty results • Pre-dispersion on add signals greatly reduces nonlinear benefit Higher input CD degrades NL tolerance, esp. on NZ-DSF [1,5,6]
  • 12.
    IEEE Photonics Conference12 2014, paper TuF1.4 • Nonlinear benefit from frequent add/drop  up to 1.25 dB shown for add/drop of all neighbors every 2 spans • Much of the add/drop nonlinear benefit is due to reduced PAPR when add signals have zero initial CD • Topics for further study • Behavior with combined nonlinearity and optical filtering • Filtering penalty will at least partially offset nonlinear benefit? • Behavior with other fiber types besides NZ-DSF • Less impact from pre-dispersion over higher-dispersion fiber? (e.g. SSMF) • Other modulation formats • Mixed QPSK-OOK networks? • Next-gen 16QAM/8QAM? Conclusions
  • 13.
  • 14.
    IEEE Photonics Conference14 2014, paper TuF1.4 • [1] P. Poggiolini, G. Bosco, A. Carena, V. Curri, Y. Jiang, and F. Forghieri, “The GN-Model of Fiber Non- Linear Propagation and its Applications,” J. Lightwave Technol. 32(4), pp. 694–721, February 2014. • [2] T. Zami, A. Morea, and N. Brogard, “Impact of routing on the transmission performance in a partially transparent optical network,” Proc. OFC/NFOEC, paper JThA50 (2008). • [3] T. Zami, P. Henri, L. Lorcy, and C. Simonneau, “Impact of the optical routing on the transmission in transparent networks,” Proc. ECOC, paper 1.5.2 (2009). • [4] Y. Ye, G. Goeger, E. Zhou, S. Zhang, and X. Xu, “Interplay of Filtering and Nonlinear Transmission in Coherent Uncompensated DWDM System,” Proc. OFC/NFOEC, paper OM3B.4 (2013). • [5] F. Vacondio, O. Rival, C. Simonneau, E. Grellier, A. Bononi, L. Lorcy, J.-C. Antona, and S. Bigo, “On nonlinear distortions of highly dispersive optical coherent sytsems,” Opt. Express 20(2), p. 1022- 1032, Jan. 2012. • [6] X. Liu and S. Chandrasekhar, “Experimental Study of the Impact of Dispersion on PDM-QPSK and PDM-16QAM Performance in Inhomogeneous Fiber Transmission,” Proc. ECOC, paper P.4.17 (2013). • [7] S. Searcy and S. Tibuleac, “Impact of Channel Add/Drop on Nonlinear Performance in Uncompensated 100G Coherent Systems,” submitted to OFC 2015. References