Re: [10GBT] Summary of issues with PAM12
Hal,
I don't understand why the "hole in the constellation" is seen as an
issue. It causes the PAM-12 to be less "efficient" than it could be,
just like the padding bits and encapsulation overhead. The net result is
that the proposal using PAM-12 needs a symbol rate of 825Mbaud where a
lower clock rate might be used if the efficiency was better. However, if
the comparison is made using that proposal and PAM-12 still comes out
better then perhaps the "inefficiency" is acceptable. If, on the other
hand and as Sailesh maintains, the comparison comes out in favor of
PAM-8 then the PAM-12 proponents might want to look at ways of "trimming
the fat."
It would be equally valid to raise the "issue with PAM-8" of "only 12
bits/baud" and require the PAM-8 fans to address that...
Personally, I think 10GBASE-T would be best addressed by 4 pair, bonded,
2BASE-TL on steroids :-)
Hugh.
Roberts, Hal wrote:
>All,
>
>Sailesh provides a nice compact list of (his) issues with regard to PAM12. I
>have seen responses to some of these but nothing addressing or summarizing
>them all.
>
>In addition it would be useful (at least to me) to see a similar summary of
>"Issues with PAM8" from a PAM12 proponent. (Unless based on Sailesh's
>criticisms there are no longer any PAM12 proponents? ;-)
>
>Finally, Sailesh has a good point that a number of his issues have been
>completely unanswered. I am surprised no one has addressed the 'hole in
>constellation' issue.
>
>
>
>