Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
George, What I hear you saying is that even though you claim that receiver based ANEXT cancellation is possible, it is not required for the objectives. Are you saying that we must use installation or retrofit based ANEXT mitigation in order to meet the objectives? Sterling George Zimmerman wrote: Sreen - I'm glad to hear that you implicitly agree that 10GBT is feasible on Cat-7 and on shorter distances of Cat5e & 6. That should form the basis from which we can go forward with a PAR & 5 criteria. The main difference that we have had is in regards to distances on 5e & 6 relate to ability to mitigate alien NEXT, which you accounted for zero in your analysis. We appear to be at an impasse on this point. Multiple vendors have presented installation-based techniques, and you still account for zero alien NEXT mitigation. SolarFlare added to that receiver based techniques, which, you still account for zero. However, all of this is moot, since we are not asking for standardization of these receiver-based techniques at this time. I suggest we move on on the points we agree on. George Zimmerman gzimmerman@solarflare.com tel: (949) 581-6830 ext. 2500 cell: (310) 920-3860-----Original Message----- From: Sreen Raghavan [mailto:sreen-raghavan@vativ.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 4:18 PM To: George Zimmerman; '[unknown]' Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters George: We at Vativ always maintained that 10Gbps is theoretically feasibleover adistance of 100 meters on CAT-7 cabling. In fact, we were the first company to say that. I refer you to the following URL:http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10GBT/public/mar03/sallaway_1_0303. pdf In the same presentation, we said that the goal of 100 metertransmissionat 10Gbps data rate is unachievable on CAT-5e and CAT-6 cables. Wefollowedup these results with a 3-PHY vendor joint presentation in May 2003. Wealsopointed out some of the practical considerations that need to beaddressedin both of these presentations. My disagreements with you stem from your claims regarding 10Gbps transmission at 100 meters over CAT-5e and CAT-6 cables. You insistedthat10Gbps data rate was achievable on 100 meter CAT-5 cables (November2002Plenary). I am attaching URLs to two of your presentations tounderscorethese claims. Presentation 1:http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10GBT/public/jan03/jones_2_0103.pdfPresentation 2:http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10GBT/public/nov02/diminico_1_1102. pdf In both of these presentations, yourself & your colleagues atSolarflareclaimed that 100 meter distance was achievable on CAT-5 cables. In Presentation 2, page 9, Solarflare specifically claimed that 100 meter distance was achievable on CAT-5, and that this was possible due toMIMO &FEXT mitigation. Of course, no presentation to my knowledge had independently verified Solarflare's claims in these presentations with technically repeatable results. Once again, if such presentationsexist,please inform us. But now you are saying that 10Gbps is doable on some cables at some distance in some installations. Such a vague goal cannot be the basis for standardization work. Sreen Raghavan Vativ Technologies -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-3-10gbt@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-10gbt@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of George Zimmerman Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:34 PM To: [unknown] Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters Sreen - I will continue to treat you with respect, and assume that somehow I misunderstand the tone of your email. I can answer your arguments,butthen let us focus back on the PAR & 5 criteria. I believe that we have now discussed the shortcomings of theassumptionsof your analysis. If you wish to go do work we can discuss it forward. The process of building consensus is not the same as a full disclosure of algorithms & architectures. In the interest of moving things forward, we have focused on building broad market potential looking at the installed base. The capacity results presented in the consensus proposal assumed no alien NEXT mitigation and still addressed > 60% of the installed base at 50meters. We can do better, but surely you can agree that 10 Gigabit transmission is feasible on some length of ClassDor E cabling. Even you signed on to presentations proposing 10Gigabiton Class F cabling, do you now wish to withdraw that proposal? I believe that you misunderstood me on the email - installation based alien NEXT mitigation is found in the presentations I referenced, as I stated. With regards to receiver-based alien NEXT mitigation, we were asked to present an example of this, and we presented such an example (not a definitive tutorial, nor necessarily the best or onlytechnique)at the last meeting - it appears that at least some folks on the reflector have caught on to it. I understand that you disagree withtheresults, but they are what they are. With regards to complexity, system and AFE requirements are reflectedinthe Massana analysis. I would NOT claim computational complexity reduction is entirely due to MIMO, nor did we claim that in November,aswe did give examples of multi-rate & efficient filter implementations. There is a lot of literature on efficient high-rate DSP, and I believe that others have understood this issue on the reflector, and have disagreed with you. Let us now focus back on the PAR & 5 criteria. We all took a step forward to technical feasibility with the text drafted (and voted inbythe SG) in San Francisco. Included within it was the feasibility on Class F, based on statements & proposals backed by Vativ & others,alsoincluded were statements that Class D & E could support 10G, with acknowledgement that specification augmentation might be in order. These are concessions for building consensus, even without Alien NEXT mitigation of any sort. As far as technical feasibility is concerned,Ibelieve it answers the capacity concerns raised, and I have seen agreement & public statements by other PHY companies that this is feasible (though not in the meeting). As far as broad market potential is concerned, looking at somethinglike99% of the installed base in 2005 being Class D & E, and between60-70%being less than 50meters, that represents a broad market George Zimmerman gzimmerman@solarflare.com tel: (949) 581-6830 ext. 2500 cell: (310) 920-3860-----Original Message----- From: Sreen Raghavan [mailto:sreen-raghavan@vativ.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:18 PM To: George Zimmerman; sreen@vativ.com; 'DOVE,DANIEL J(HP-Roseville,ex1)';'Alan Flatman'; 'Kardontchik, Jaime' Cc: '[unknown]'; 'Sterling Vaden' Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters George: I have gone thru' these presentations. I do not see any of these presentations verifying your claims on: 1. Receiver ANEXT mitigation techniques, 2. MIMO somehow collapsing the DSP complexity (a claim Solarflaremadeduring Nov 2002 IEEE meeting). You claim that above techniques are essential to the feasibility of10Gover CAT-5e, but you never provided any MATLAB models to the group toverify.In addition, you said in November 2002 that 10G was feasible over 100metersof CAT-5e. Due to careful mathematical analysis done by Vativ (and made available to the group MATLAB models to verify) and other companiesoverpast 9 months, majority in the group are now convinced that yourclaimisfalse. I believe that you must adhere to due scientific process to supportyourclaims. Sreen -----Original Message----- From: George Zimmerman [mailto:gzimmerman@solarflare.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:52 PM To: sreen@vativ.com; DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1); Alan Flatman; Kardontchik, Jaime Cc: [unknown]; Sterling Vaden Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters Presentations are given by individuals, not companies, but you canfindthem on the 10GBASE-T study group site. Among those of note are a January presentation from Stephen Bates, up to one just in July byShadiAbuGhazaleh & Rehan Mahmood (there are more on mitigation and on feasibility studies, Ron Nordin & Vanderlaan, Albert Vareljian,BijitHalder all come to mind). There really isn't any mystery here - going to shorter distances increases the received signal proportionally, and mitigating alienNEXTdecreases the noise, hence, more capacity. What is more, becausethecrossover point (signal/noise=1) occurs at a higher frequency, only increasing the capacity further. George Zimmerman gzimmerman@solarflare.com tel: (949) 581-6830 ext. 2500 cell: (310) 920-3860-----Original Message----- From: Sreen Raghavan [mailto:sreen-raghavan@vativ.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 4:24 PM To: George Zimmerman; sreen@vativ.com; 'DOVE,DANIEL J(HP-Roseville,ex1)';'Alan Flatman'; 'Kardontchik, Jaime' Cc: '[unknown]'; 'Sterling Vaden' Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters George, Please indicate which company's presentation has independentlyconfirmedyour claims, and where I can find such a presentation. -----Original Message----- From: George Zimmerman [mailto:gzimmerman@solarflare.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:16 PM To: sreen@vativ.com; DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1); AlanFlatman;Kardontchik, Jaime Cc: [unknown]; Sterling Vaden Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters Sreen & all - I believe some clarification is in order. What the presentation you reference from Portsmouth, New Hampshire showed was that with an assumption of a high-degree of alien NEXTandafurther assumption that it could not be mitigated in any way,cat5e/cat6could not support 100meter operation at 10G. This is a different statement altogether as to whether cat5e/6 can support 10G eitherwithalien NEXT mitigation, or at shorter reaches, both of which havebeenshown to yield sufficient capacity to allow 10G in numerous presentations by multiple vendors. The consensus proposal presented at San Francisco argued that even without alien NEXT mitigation, there was a sufficient portion oftheinstalled base of 5e & 6 coverable to merit broad market potential(>60%installed base at 50m or less), and that in addition to SolarFlare showing both receiver-based (DSP) and installation-practices basedalienNEXT mitigation examples, other companies have now shownsignificantalien NEXT mitigation through installation practices. These developments significantly change the capacity relations youreferto, making 10GBASE-T practical on the economically feasibleinstalledbase of cat5e & 6. On your technical points for implementation, I respectfullydisagree,and we have put forward our requirements, and these have beenconfirmedby at least one independent presentation. George Zimmerman gzimmerman@solarflare.com tel: (949) 581-6830 ext. 2500 cell: (310) 920-3860-----Original Message----- From: Sreen Raghavan [mailto:sreen-raghavan@vativ.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:58 PM To: 'DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1)'; sreen@vativ.com; 'AlanFlatman';'Kardontchik, Jaime' Cc: '[unknown]'; 'Sterling Vaden' Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters Dan: We are really referring to the theory (Shannon Capacity) when wesay10Gbps cannot be achieved over CAT-5e or CAT-6 cabling. Theory showsthat10Gbpscan be achieved over CAT-7 cabling. Practical issues toaccomplish10Gbpsover CAT-7 cabling include (assuming PAM-10 modulation): 1. Building an 11-bit effective ADC at 833 MBaud, 2. Performing large number (x8 relative to 1000BaseT) of DSPcalculationsat 833MHz, 3. DDFSE critical path to be implemented in 1.2 ns 4. Building a linear transmit driver with an 833MGz bandwidth &40dBSNRThe above list by no means is exhaustive, but shows theimplementationissues that need to be considered. Sreen -----Original Message----- From: DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:dan.dove@hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:09 PM To: 'sreen@vativ.com'; 'Alan Flatman'; 'Kardontchik, Jaime' Cc: '[unknown]'; 'Sterling Vaden' Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters Hi Sreen, One thing that occurs to me on this point is the differencebetweentheory and application. Specifically, how many process actionshavetotake place within a baud time to close the loops on the DSP andwhatprocess geometry would be required to make that timing closure? I know that with 1000BASE-T, the theory was rock solid longbeforetheprocesses to implement it were reliable. Dan HP ProCurve-----Original Message----- From: Sreen Raghavan [mailto:sreen-raghavan@vativ.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:52 AM To: 'Alan Flatman'; 'Kardontchik, Jaime' Cc: '[unknown]'; 'Sterling Vaden' Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters Just to clarify, Vativ, Broadcom & Marvell presented capacity calculations at the Portsmouth meeting and showed that worst-case CAT-7 (Class F) cabling had sufficient channel capacity to achieve 10Gbps throughput at 100 meter distance. The reason for "may be possible" statement in the conclusions was that the 3 PHY vendors felt that more work needed to be done on practical implementation issues before the conclusion could be alteredtoamoredefinitive statement. In addition, we proved conclusively that there was NOT sufficient channel capacity on existing CAT-5e (Class D), or CAT-6 (Class E) cables to achieve 10 Gbps throughput. Sreen Raghavan Vativ Technologies -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-3-10gbt@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-10gbt@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Alan Flatman Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:51 AM To: Kardontchik, Jaime Cc: [unknown]; Sterling Vaden Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters Message text written by "Kardontchik, Jaime"Was any reason given why it would not run on Class F ? Was itfortechnical reasons or for marketing reasons ?< The 3-PHY vendor presentation made in Portsmouth(sallaway_1_0503)calculated 49.36 Gbit/s capacity using unscaled Cat 7/Class F cabling. This figure was reduced to 37.71 Gbit/s with worst case limits.Overall,Ithought that this was a refreshingly realistic presentationandIinterpreted the summary statement "Capacity calculations with measured data indicate 10 Gigabit data transmission over 100m Cat 7 may bepossible"(slide 16, bullet 3) as overly cautious engineering judgement. So, what has changed since the May interim? Not the laws ofphysics!Best regards, Alan Flatman Principal Consultant LAN Technologies |