Re: [10GBT-Modeling] RE: [10GBT-Cabling] [10GBASE-T] a channel capacityestimation program for your evaluation

[Albert Vareljian <albertv@ieee.org>]

Title:

Bill,

I would tend to agree with you. However, if FFE-DFE performance
is affected, than the RFI end effects would depend on the overall
SNR budget to spare. Once we get a better picture on the SNR and
margin, we can revisit this.

Regards,
Albert


William Jones wrote:
> Albert
>
> I am less concerned about the RFI since it will be significantly narrowband with respect to the system we are considering where the analog bandwidth is in excess of 300MHz.  It is straightforward to exploit the correlation this represents.
>
> regards
>
> Bill 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Albert Vareljian [mailto:albertv@ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:50 PM
> To: xichen@marvell.com
> Cc: William Jones; stds-802-3-10GBT-Cabling@ieee.org;
> stds-802-3-10GBT-Modeling@ieee.org; stds-802-3-10GBT@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [10GBT-Modeling] RE: [10GBT-Cabling] [10GBASE-T] a channel
> capacity estimation program for your evaluation
>
>
> Xiaopeng,
>
> True. I feel that RF ingress could cause similar to ANEXT trouble too,
> especially in the system with high SNR requirements...
>
> There have been reports of RF cancellers being attempted in 1000BASE-T
> and VDSL, however their effectiveness remains pretty much a dark area.
>
> Regards,
> Albert
>
>
> xichen@marvell.com wrote:
>
> > Albert,
> >
> > A few more lines.  It becomes more clear for all of us that the ANEXT is
> > the key factor that determines how the 10GBase-T standard will look like.
> > Let's wait until we reach our consensus on how to handle the ANEXT trouble.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Xiaopeng
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >