White Paper 059

Deployment Strategies for 40G/100G:

Trade-Offs and Impacts
Jean-Sbastien Tass, Product Line Manager, EXFO

When deciding to deploy high-speed 40 Gbit/s or 100 Gbit/s

technologies, operators are faced with an important dilemma in terms
of spectral planning: should the new wavelengths be deployed over
an existing network, with existing traffic (brownfield deployments),
or should they be rolled out over unused or new fibers (greenfield
deployments)? While the answer to that question will depend
on the context, type of network (metro, long-haul, etc.), capacity
requirements, and other factors, operators should keep in mind that
each approach has its pros and cons, and particular challenges.
This paper explores the trade-offs of greenfield and brownfield nextgeneration architectures, the impairments these approaches give
rise to, as well as ways to reduce the operational costs that these
impairments generate for service providers, based on data from the
ITU-T G. 697 standard. The topic of proper spectral planning and
managing capacity will underlay this entire paper.
This paper begins with a definition of coherent vs. non-coherent,
as well as greenfield vs. brownfield. Next, it presents the trade-offs
that each approach entails in terms of bandwidth, scalability and
impact on quality of service (QoS). Impairments commonly found
in these high-speed deployments, such as polarization mode
dispersion (PMD), non-linear effects and inter-channel crosstalk,
will also be discussed, as will their impact on bit error rates (BERs)
and operational costs. Following this, a recommended way to analyze
these impairments and reduce their financial impact will be explored
in detail. In addition, common mitigation approaches are highlighted
(use of guard bands, power adjustment, wavelength planning, etc.).

A Few Definitions
The following definitions and concepts will be referenced throughout
this paper, and in particular, the notion of a coherent detector versus
a non-coherent detector. First, a coherent detector, or coherent
system, refers to a detector that uses a local oscillator, or a laser,
to properly recover the signal. Coherent detectors are commonly
used today for phase-modulated schemes, such as dual-polarization
quadrature phase-shift keying (DP-QPSK) operating at 40 Gbit/s
or 100 Gbit/s. Coherent detectors can also be used to recover
amplitude modulated signals, and that capacity will be mostly
leveraged in 200 Gbit/s or 400 Gbit/s systems. Figure 1 shows the
content of a coherent detector.

Signal
Local
Oscillator

Polarization
Controller

Hybrid

Balanced
Detector

ADC

Balanced
Detector

ADC

Figure 1. Block diagram of a coherent receiver

DSP

Direct detection (also called non-coherent detection), on the

other hand, relies solely on a measurement of signal power, which
is proportional to the square of the signal amplitude. This is the
detection method of choice for legacy systems such as 10 Gbit/s
using on-off keying (amplitude modulation). Although non-coherent
100 Gbit/s systems are also available, their market penetration
remains very low. The content of a non-coherent detector is a lot
simpler than that of a coherent detector, because its main component
consists of a simple photodiode.
These two technologies, coherent and non-coherent transmission,
have several benefits and drawbacks, which will be explored in the
next paragraph.

40G/100G Deployment Key Decision:

Greenfield or Brownfield?
When deciding to deploy high-speed 40 Gbit/s or 100 Gbit/s
technologies, one of the key decisions that operators must make in
terms of spectral planning is whether the new wavelengths should be
deployed over an existing network and with existing traffic (brownfield
deployments), or whether they should they be rolled out over unused
or new fibers (greenfield deployments)? Although this decision might
seem simple, it will have a significant impact on the maximum capacity
of the fiber and QoS. Other significant issues may also arise.
A greenfield deployment will typically include only 100G coherent
wavelengths, although it might have some 40G coherent wavelengths
too. The most common example of a brownfield system is a fiber
featuring 10G channels with 100G channels. Other examples of
brownfield systems, though less common, include 10G mixed with
coherent 40G, or non-coherent 40G mixed with 100G.
Infonetics1 published an interesting survey showing that in about
two thirds of all cases, service providers (including operators and
telecom companies) prefer to roll out brownfield technologies.
100%

28%

40%

33%

39%

80%

Average Percentage

Overview

72%
67%

60%

60%

61%

40%

20%

0%

2013: Metro

2016: Metro

2013: Core

Brownfield

Figure 2. Popularity of greenfield vs. brownfield

1. Infonetics, 40G/100G/ROADM Strategies, November 2013, www.infonetics.com/research.asp

Greenfield

2016: Core

White Paper 059

The reason for the popularity of each approach resides, to a great

extent, in their respective merits for spectral planning, as highlighted
in Figure 3.

Pros

Cons

The reference to easily cohabit means that two channels (e.g., 10G
and non-coherent 40G) can be transmitted side by side without
creating unnecessary bit errors, whereas a 10G channel right beside
a 100G channel will cause bit errors due to cross-phase modulation,
which can usually be prevented by using a guard band.

Higher maximum bandwidth

Greenfield

No dispersion compensation

modules for chromatic dispersion
Less polarization mode
dispersion (PMD) issues

More costly

Easily scalable

Brownfield

No service interruption

Requires guard bands

Pay as you go
Quicker implementation

Will cause cross-phase

modulation

Less inter-channel crosstalk

Not so easily scalable

Figure 3. Trade-offs of greenfield and brownfield implementations

Each characteristic will now be examined more closely. Greenfield

technology offers a higher maximum bandwidth, because, in theory,
each channel can support 100G service, whereas brownfield
technology will have some channels operating at a lower data
rate, such as 10G or 40G. In addition, greenfield technology does
not require any dispersion compensation modules to cancel out
chromatic dispersion effects: this is due to coherent systems that
have robust chromatic dispersion compensation capabilities. This
is the opposite case with regards to brownfield systems. Greenfield
systems also show higher tolerance to PMD issues than brownfield
systems because of the PMD compensation capabilities offered by
the digital signal processor (DSP), even though several instances of
PMD compensation failure in coherent systems have been reported
in cases of high PMD or fast-changing PMD, which is common in
aerial cables. Finally, greenfield is more easily scalable because guard
bands do not need to be planned (this concept will be explained
later). Considering the pros of greenfield, it may seem like the holy
grail of coherent deployments; however, greenfield comes at a higher
price, mainly because it requires laying new fiber and installing all the
components that come with it (amplifiers, reconfigurable optical add/
drop multiplexers, mux, demux, etc.), whereas brownfield makes use
of existing fiber, and with all of these components already in place.
Brownfield deployments do not entail such steep initial costs, since
the main capital expenditure involved is just the cost of the transmitter
and receiver. This means that brownfield systems are, in general,
faster to implement than greenfield ones. Moreover, no service
interruptions occur in conjunction with brownfield deployments, as
long as a proper commissioning procedure is followed. Inter-channel
crosstalk, a topic that will be covered later in this paper, also occurs
less often in brownfield systems.

Figure 4. Concept of guard band

Second, a brownfield deployment will create cross-phase

modulation, an impairment that will be explained in the next section.
Third, brownfield technology is not so easily scalable, because nonlinear effects, most notably cross-phase modulation, have to be taken
into account whenever a new wavelength is added, something that
is much less critical for greenfield deployments.

Impact of Common Impairments in

Coherent Deployments
Now that the impact of choosing greenfield or brownfield deployment
strategies has been explored, the next topic of discussion will be
the most common impairments in coherent deployments and their
associated costs. Some of these impairments are more common
in brownfield deployments, while others are more prevalent in
greenfield systems.
One of the best references on this topic comes from the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), with its recommendation G. 697
v3.02: Optical Monitoring for DWDM Systems, which lists the most
common impairments in 10G systems, as follows:
Impairment

Frequency Test Instrument

Attenuation

High

OTDR, OLTS,
probes, OSA

Optical channel power changes due to gain variations High

OSA

Frequency (or wavelength) deviation from normal

High

OSA

Polarization mode dispersion

Medium

PMD tester
OSA

Four wave mixing

Medium

Amplified spontaneous emission from optical amplifiers

Medium

OSA

Chromatic dispersion, CD slope

Medium

CD tester

Reflections

Medium

OLTS, OTDR,
ORL tester

Laser noise

Medium

OSA

Inter-channel crosstalk

Medium

OSA

10G will easily cohabit with non-coherent 40G

Interferometric crosstalk

Medium

OSA

10G will NOT easily cohabit with coherent 40G

Cross-phase modulation, self-phase modulation

Low

OSA

100G coherent will NOT cohabit easily with 10G

Brillouin scattering, Raman scattering

Low

OSA

However, brownfield deployments do have a few drawbacks that are

worth taking into consideration. First, a typical brownfield system
requires a guard band (this concept is illustrated in Figure 4), which
involves leaving some channels empty to avoid bit errors. This
requirement stems from the fact that:

Figure 5. Most common impairments according to ITU-T G. 697 v3.02

2014 EXFO Inc. All rights reserved.

White Paper 059

In Figure 5, high frequency means 10 events per year, medium

means one event per year, and low means one event per ten years.
The standard only includes the first two columns; the third column
has been added by EXFO to help readers identify the right test
instrument for each impairment.
The relevance and importance of this data is that this list does not
concern a single service provider or single geographical area: it
comes from an independent industry standards body, comprised
of members that are service providers and systems vendors
(NEMs) from all regions of the world. Therefore, this data is quite
representative of the telecommunications industry.
The ITU also states the following in the recommendation: At present,
there is not enough experience to prepare a similar table for optical
channels with bit rates up to 40 Gbit/s. Although it would be best
to have such a table for 40G or 100G, this data can be extrapolated
using well-known technical considerations.
Most of these impairments happen at the same frequency, whether
the system is greenfield or brownfield. However, the choice of
greenfield vs. brownfield has a notable impact on the prevalence of
four of these impairments in particular: polarization mode dispersion,
chromatic dispersion, inter-channel crosstalk, and cross-phase
modulation. Chromatic dispersion has already been discussed in
conjunction with figure 3, so it will not be covered herein.
For each of the three remaining impairments, the cost of a system
failure due to that particular impairment will be evaluated. A brownfield
system featuring ten 10G channels and four 100G channels with
unprotected routes (meaning there is no alternative route that can be
used as an immediate backup in the case of system failure) will be
taken into consideration. Despite rigorous efforts, it was not possible
to obtain industry-wide data showing the service-level agreement
(SLA) penalties associated with network downtime, most likely
because such information is highly sensitive to network operators
for competitive reasons. Instead, cost estimates will be used that are
based on the best information available: commercial proposals that
EXFO has received from service providers for guaranteed business
services at its offices in Canada and the United Kingdom. The SLA
penalties guaranteed by this contract for our dedicated bandwidth
have been multiplied to obtain the SLA penalty of a 10G channel.
For a downtime of between one and six hours on a single 10G
wavelength, SLA penalties range from $5000 to $175 000, for
which an average of $50 000 has been estimated. For downtimes
exceeding 16 hours on a single 10G wavelength, SLA penalties
range from $50 000 to $700 000; for which the estimated average
is $250 000.
It should be noted that these calculations are estimates
(approximations). As such, readers are invited to apply our method
and use their own internal numbers.

Common Impairments in Coherent

Deployments
Polarization Mode Dispersion
Polarization mode dispersion (PMD) is an impairment due to the fact
that the two principal states of polarization in a fiber do not travel at the
same speed as a result of environmental considerations (temperature
changes, mechanical stresses on the fiber, etc.), or poor fiber geometry
(oval fiber core instead of circular fiber core, etc.). Several references
explain PMD in details, so it will not be covered herein.
PMD has been a well-known issue in fiber communications since
the advent of 10 Gbit/s signals many years ago. Generally speaking,
coherent systems can support higher PMD values than 10G noncoherent channels, due to the PMD compensation offered by the
DSP. However, coherent systems sometimes fail to compensate
for PMD when the differntial group delay (DGD) is very high, or
when DGD changes quickly. In a brownfield deployment, the 10G
channels, and especially the 40G non-coherent channels, are as
likely to suffer from PMD issues as a purely non-coherent system.
In fact, EXFO has documented cases of high BER on 40G noncoherent due to PMD, and in many countries, including the United
States, Canada, Germany and China. In conclusion, brownfield
deployments are more prone to PMD issues than greenfield
deployments.
To estimate the costs of PMD problems, it has been assumed
that a PMD problem can be fixed within one to six hours (an
optimistic hypothesis), and therefore the SLA penalty of a single
10G wavelength is $50 000. According to the ITU data in figure
5, PMD issues occur once a year on a 10G system, in which case
it can be surmised that the same would be true on a brownfield
coherent deployment. Given that our sample system has three 10G
wavelengths, PMD would generate a total cost of $150 000 per
year.

Inter-Channel Crosstalk
Inter-channel crosstalk is the second impairment, and its prevalence
can be affected by the choice of greenfield or brownfield technology.
Inter-channel crosstalk refers to two neighboring channels that
overlap in the spectral domain. Figure 6 clarifies this concept,
showing a system of six 100G channels with 50 GHz spacings
(0.4 nm), which is a very common configuration. The curve in black
shows these six channels turned on, while the curve in grey displays
the same system with one channel out of two turned off. In analyzing
one specific channel bandwidth (highlighted in blue in the figure), it
is clear that when that channel is turned off, its neighbors to the left
and right sides extend into that channel bandwidth, which can be
seen even more clearly in figure 7. The neighbor represents noise to
the channel of interest, which is why this shaded area is referred to
as crosstalk noise. Therefore, in this case, the total noise present
in the system consists of amplified spontaneous emission (ASE)
noise, the traditional source of noise coming from optical amplifiers
and crosstalk noise.

2014 EXFO Inc. All rights reserved.

White Paper 059

C
 rosstalk SLA penalty = Two events per year x 2 ch. x 10 x
$250 000 = $10M per year.
This figure is an approximation, and readers are encouraged to carry
out the same calculations using the right data for their companies.

Cross-Phase Modulation

Figure 6. Inter-channel crosstalk

Cross-phase modulation is a more subtle but very important

impairment in coherent brownfield systems. Figure 8 depicts
the situation: assume that a fiber with some 10G on-off keying
signals (amplitude modulation) is traveling alongside 100G phasemodulated coherent channels. The 10G channel will go on and off,
locally heating the fiber (shown in blue in the top part of figure 8),
which will result in changes in the fiber index of refraction, because
the index of refraction depends on the temperature. This means the
index of refraction will change as a function of time and space in the
fiber. Since the index of refraction is a measurement of the velocity of
light in a medium (glass in this case) versus that in vacuum, it follows
that the changes in the index of refraction will modify the phase of
the signals as they propagate in the fiber (see the bottom section
of figure 8). This phenomenon of the 10G signal interfering on the
other signals is called cross-phase modulation. For 10G signals,
this effect does not matter much, because the receiver detects
the signal amplitude to recover the signal, which is not affected by
cross-phase modulation. However, cross-phase modulation is bad
for 100G signals, which are phase-modulated. Put another way,
cross-phase modulation creates phase noise, which leads to higher
BER. In summary, cross-phase modulation primarily affects
brownfield coherent deployments.

Figure 7. Inter-channel crosstalk

Inter-channel crosstalk mainly depends on two factors: signal width

and channel spacing:
The tighter the channel spacing, the worse the inter-channel
crosstalk will be.
The larger the signal width, the worse inter-channel crosstalk will be.
Since 100G channels are modulated faster than 10G channels
(their baud rate is higher), 100G channels will be spectrally larger
than 10G channels. This is a consequence of the Schrodinger
uncertainty principle, a key principle in quantum physics. In general,
the spectral width of 40G channels is greater than that of 10G
channels; however, it depends on the modulation format. Since
greenfield systems predominantly include 100G channels, interchannel crosstalk generally occurs more often in greenfield
systems than brownfield systems.
To calculate the cost of a crosstalk issue, it will be assumed that it
takes more than 16 hours to fixa reasonable assumption, because
the technical expertise required to recognize inter-channel crosstalk
is high, few test instruments are available to diagnose it, and fixing
inter-channel crosstalk is lengthy. This means the SLA penalty for a
single 10G wavelength will be $250 000 for our sample brownfield
system. According to the ITU data in figure 5, inter-channel crosstalk
happens once a year on a 10G system, and therefore it can be
concluded that this problem would be more common in coherent
systems due to the larger spectral width of 100G signals. For this
reason, two events per year will be factored in. If these failures affect
two 100G channels, the cost will be 10 times that of a 10G channel
for each 100G wavelength, so the total SLA penalty will be:

Figure 8. Cross-phase modulation

Cross-phase modulation shows dependence on a number of factors.

First, it is worse if the channels travel at the same speed, i.e., if
their wavelengths are close (the index of refraction depends on
the wavelength). This is why guard bands are used in brownfield
deployments: to ensure that the 10G channels and the coherent
channels do not travel at the same speed, thereby reducing crossphase modulation. Second, cross-phase modulation depends on
power, like most other non-linear effects. Alcatel-Lucent, with the
collaboration of an Italian university2, has clearly demonstrated this
power dependence in an experiment in which they employed 80
channels of 100G, spaced by 50 GHz, and used 15 spans of 100
km of single-mode fiber. They then measured two contributions to
the total noise:
SNRlin: the noise from the optical amplifiers
SNRNL: the noise from non-linear effects

2. Vacondio et al., Optics Express, 4 Jan 2012, On Non-linear Distortions of Highly Dispersive Optical Coherent Systems
2014 EXFO Inc. All rights reserved.

White Paper 059

Figure 9. Non-linear effects greatly depend on channel power

In figure 9, the x-axis is the channel power, and the y-axis is the
percentage of the total noise coming from ASE noise (SNRlin) and
from non-linear effects (SNRNL). This figure clearly displays that the
higher the signal power, the higher the contribution from non-linear
effects to the total noise, up to 70% of total noise coming from nonlinear effects at a power of 5 dBm.
In order to calculate the cost generated by cross-phase modulationrelated failures, the fact that it takes more than 16 hours to fix such
failures had to be taken into consideration. Indeed, troubleshooting
cross-phase modulation is not easy, and requires highly skilled
personnel. Therefore, the SLA penalty for downtimes greater than
16 hours was used, which is $250 000 for a single 10G wavelength.
Figure 5 from the ITU states that cross-phase modulation issues
happen once per 10 years for 10G signals. However, as was previously
seen, 10G signals are barely affected by cross-phase modulation,
whereas 100G signals are affected much more. For this reason,
one occurrence per year has been factored in for 100G brownfield
systems. In our sample brownfield system, it is assumed to affect two
100G wavelengths. Therefore, the total cost is:
Cross-phase modulation SLA penalty = 1 event per year x 2 ch. x
10 x $250 000 = $5M per year.

Impairment Diagnosis and Analysis

This white paper focuses on three impairments, for which the
choice of greenfield vs. brownfield has the most impact: PMD, interchannel crosstalk and cross-phase modulation. But, how can these
impairments be analyzed? Until the recent introduction of approaches
based on optical spectrum analyzers (OSAs), PMD analyses could
only be carried out on dark fibers (fiber without any live signals). These
approaches present the unique benefit that PMD can now be assessed
nonintrusively on non-coherent channels. EXFOs WDM Investigator,
an OSA option, does just that with a user-friendly user interface.

Figure 10. The WDM Investigator interface: an OSA option used to

analyze PMD, crosstalk and cross-phase modulation

PMD Mitigation Techniques

Once the problem has been identified, a few mitigation techniques
are available. For PMD, the recommended approach is to test
the PMD pulse spreading non-intrusively at different points in the
network in order to pinpoint the fiber span inducing the PMD. Then,
once traffic has been transferred to another fiber, a distributed PMD
analyzer can be used to very precisely identify (down to the meter)
the segment causing the PMD issue so that it can be replaced.
Other PMD mitigation technique options include using another fiber
or another route, or even using a coherent system that has sufficient
PMD compensation.

Cross-Phase Modulation Mitigation

Techniques
The difficult aspect of cross-phase modulation is identifying it. Once
that is done, there are a fair number of options available to reduce
it. First, a guard band can be used. Figure 11 shows a guard band
separating 10G channels (on the left) from 100G channel (on the
right). The guard-band width depends on many factors. WDM
Investigator can be used to find the minimum guard-band width
capable of ensuring smooth system operation. Note that 200 GHz
to 300 GHz guard bands are fairly common.

Inter-channel crosstalk is a difficult impairment to analyze without

turning off channels. It usually entails very close analysis of OSA
traces by a highly skilled person. The more practical way to analyze
this impairment is EXFOs WDM Investigator, which to our knowledge,
is the only solution on the market.
Finally, cross-phase modulation is usually almost impossible to
troubleshoot with standard test instruments. The typical troubleshooting
approach usually involves changing channel power of the brownfield
systems until the BER decreases. As an alternative, WDM Investigator
can also be used by looking at the non-linear depolarization
impairment.

Figure 11. Use of guard bands to reduce cross-phase modulation

2014 EXFO Inc. All rights reserved.

White Paper 059

Cross-phase modulation can also be prevented by separating noncoherent channels (10G, on the left side in figure 12) from coherent
channels (100G, on the right side in figure 12). These first two
mitigation approaches are typically used together. In addition, as
previously shown, the impact of cross-phase modulation depends
on signal power (figure 9). Therefore, decreasing signal power will
reduce cross-phase modulation. Finally, the use of a fiber that has
non-zero chromatic dispersion can weaken cross-phase modulation,
because this non-linear effect is reduced when the channels do not
travel at the same speed.

Figure 12. Separating non-coherent and coherent channels to reduce

cross-phase modulation

Inter-Channel Crosstalk Mitigation

Techniques
Decentralize channel wavelength within the channel bandwidth
This means offsetting the channel wavelength from the ITU grid to
move it away from its neighbour causing inter-channel crosstalk.
Ensure that neighboring channels do not have the same
polarization
Channels that do not have the same polarization do not suffer from
inter-channel crosstalk.
Use guard bands or increase the channel spacing
This approach should be used as a last resort, because it reduces
the fibers maximum bandwidth.

>

As discussed earlier, one of the key decisions that operators must

make when rolling out coherent technologies is whether to use an
existing network with existing traffic (brownfield deployments), or
to use unused or new fibers (greenfield deployments). Although
brownfield is preferred in about two thirds of coherent deployments,
this does not mean that the technology only brings benefits. For
instance, brownfield deployments are less easily scalable than
greenfield technologies. On the other hand, greenfield deployments
offer higher maximum bandwidth; however, this benefit comes at
a higher price (see figure 3 for the complete story). Also to be
taken into consideration are four impairments that occur more or
less frequently depending on the choice of greenfield or brownfield
technology. While PMD, CD and cross-phase modulation occur
more frequently in brownfield rollouts, inter-channel crosstalk is
more common in greenfield deployments. Based on a number of
assumptions and calculations, these impairments can generate
costs in the hundreds, if not millions, of dollars every year. There are
few non-intrusive tools on the market capable of identifying these
impairments: in fact, EXFOs WDM Investigator (for PMD, crosstalk
and cross-phase modulation), an option on EXFO's OSA, is the most
complete offering currently available. Finally, a number of mitigation
techniques have been introduced to reduce these impairments.

Footnotes

The options for diminishing inter-channel crosstalk all involve working

on the spectral planning:

EXFO Headquarters

Conclusion

1. Infonetics, 40G/100G/ROADM Strategies, November 2013,

www. infonetics.com/research.asp
2. Vacondio et al., Optics Express, 4 Jan 2012, On Non-linear
Distortions of Highly Dispersive Optical Coherent Systems

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ASE
Amplified Spontaneous Emission
BER
Bit Error Rate
CD
Chromatic Dispersion
DSP
Digital Signal Processor
ITU International Telecommunications Union
OSA
Optical Spectrum Analyzer
PMD
Polarization Mode Dispersion
SLA
Service-Level Agreement
WDM
Wavelength-Division Multiplexing

Tel.: +1 418 683-0211 | Toll-free: +1 800 663-3936 (USA and Canada) | Fax: +1 418 683-2170 | info@EXFO.com | www.EXFO.com

EXFO serves over 2000 customers in more than 100 countries. To find your local office contact details, please go to www.EXFO.com/contact.

WHITEPAPER059.1AN

2014 EXFO Inc. All rights reserved.

2008

Printed in Canada 14/10