[10GBASE-T] RE: [10GBT-Modeling] Reflections
Joseph
Will it exist when the standard is complete?
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Babanezhad [mailto:jobaba@platolabs.com]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:18 PM
To: GEisler@aol.com; stds-802-3-10GBT-Modeling@ieee.org;
stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [10GBT-Modeling] Reflections
Dear George Eisler,
With all due respect some how I get the feeling that you are rushing the
standardization process. I remember during one of the conference calls,
prior to 10GBASE-T CFI, you were telling us not to get into details because
they'll be addressed in the SG. Now we read that we should not do that
at SG either and postpone it to Task Force! On the reflector we are
discussing some of the fundamental issues that can make or break this whole
process. In my mind it is fair to make sure that before we get a lot more
involved at least we do some sort of bottom-line analysis to see if this
thing is feasible or not. If not what are the parameters that can be
modified.
You mentioned:
> On the other hand, you will agree that the levels of sophistication
> in analysis and implementation of DSP based systems has also
> increased dramatically since 1997, when GigT started in earnest.
DSP ALWAYS needs AFE in front of it. The DSP-based 10GBASE-T solution
requires such a performance from AFE that does not exist today!
Regards,
Joseph N. Babanezhad
Plato Labs.
> Guys,
>
> Nice to hear from a lot of the old crew that created the 1000BASE-T
> standard. I think that you can all take a bow, judging from what is
> happening in the market and the remarkable improvements in
> implementations achieved in three short years. But no good deed goes
> unpunished, as they say, so you guys earned the job (and created the
> need for) taking the next step up. Without a doubt, there are big
> jumps in the performance demanded and we don't have the luxury that
> 1000BASE-T enjoyed, namely the introduction of coding into the
> design. That has been done already. This time around, we have to
> take advantage of the residual capacity of the cabling, which we
> barely touched.
>
> On the other hand, you will agree that the levels of sophistication
> in analysis and implementation of DSP based systems has also
> increased dramatically since 1997, when GigT started in earnest.
>
> While I enjoyed fond memories of your recollections of what we knew
> (or suspected) then and what we added later when we got smarter, it
> strikes me that that history is relatively immaterial today. That
> was then and our current circumstances are quite different. We now
> need to agree in the study group that it is feasible to do 10Gig on
> some form of twisted pair cabling at the desired length and go on to
> form a Task Force to do the hard work of coming to agreement on the
> precise details of the signaling and channel specifications.
>
> It is clear that the channel specifications as written in 11801 will
> have to be modified and expanded for our use and installation
> qualification test parameters will have to be defined. This is more
> or less what happened for 1000BASE-T and seems to me to be a normal
> and reasonable step. After all, why should the cabling industry be
> expected to have already characterized cabling for the use of a
> standard for which we are still in the Study Group phase? As for
> installed cabling, we will see whether or how it may be qualified
> for 10G as part of our effort.
>
> I look forward to our meeting in Dallas and hope that we can get to
> work on a PAR draft there.
>
> George Eisler
--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)