Re: [10GBT] PAM8 and PAM12 sys time domain analysis
Albert,
I assumed that the reference to Model 3 in your report included ANEXT with a
64.5dB intercept and other worst-case impairments, as agreed upon in the
task force.
If there was no ANEXT or residual Echo/NEXT/FEXT in your simulations, then I
calculate the implementation loss in your simulations to be at least 3.6dB
for PAM8 and at least 4.0dB for PAM12.
I don't think we should be contemplating such implementations for 10GBASE-T.
Regards,
Sailesh Rao.
srao@phyten.com
>From: Albert Vareljian <albertv@IEEE.ORG>
>Reply-To: "IEEE P802.3an" <STDS-802-3-10GBT@listserv.ieee.org>
>To: STDS-802-3-10GBT@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [10GBT] PAM8 and PAM12 sys time domain analysis
>Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:20:13 -0700
>
>Hi Jose,
>
>No ANEXT or other impairments except -140dBm/Hz were employed in sims
>covered in the report.
>
>Adding ANEXT would seem to be the next logical step. However, correctly
>modeling ANEXT may prove a bit tricky.
>
>As we already discussed on IEEE floor -- our agreed ANEXT models
>are specified only in terms of the frequency domain magnitude (no
>phase). So, the time-domain implementation has been left open up
>to the user...
>
>There could be many interpretations as to how one arrives at a
>reasonably behaved time-domain ANEXT TF and its excitation method.
>Our analysis indicates that end results in the system could vary
>significantly on the case by case basis, depending on the methodology
>used to model time-domain ANEXT behavior.
>
>Based on the above, it may be helpful if the group agrees on and adopts
>some "uniquely" defined causal, scalable time-domain capable model
>for ANEXT that could be used for system qualification. One possible
>example of ANEXT TF implementation in s-domain (usable in time- and
>frequency- sims) is illustrated in the attachment.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Albert
>
>
>
>
>Jose Tellado wrote:
>
>>Hi Albert,
>>
>>Thank you for your detailed time-domain report, I have a couple of
>>simple questions on the simulation assumptions.
>>
>>Have you included the effects of ANEXT in these simulations? If so, what
>>approved PHY channel model (1-4) would this approximate?
>>
>>Did you include other receiver impairments such as residual EC/NX/FX or
>>did you lump all these effect into the -140dBm/Hz noise?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Jose Tellado
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG [mailto:stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG] On
>>Behalf Of Albert Vareljian
>>Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 7:57 PM
>>To: STDS-802-3-10GBT@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>Subject: [10GBT] PAM8 and PAM12 sys time domain analysis
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Pls find attached pdf report on PAM8 and PAM12 systems time domain
>>simulation and comparative analysis.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Albert Vareljian
>>
>>
>>
><< ANEXT_Fig.doc >>
_________________________________________________________________
Overwhelmed by debt? Find out how to ‘Dig Yourself Out of Debt’ from MSN
Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0407debt.armx