RE: WWDM vs. 10Gb/s serial

[pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Paul Bottorff)]

Ed:

The 2n bits is wrong. To zero out a scrambler of order n, you need a
pattern of (2**n - 1) bits. For instance, lets consider the seventh-order
frame synchronized scrambler that is being used by SONET. The pseudo-random
sequence generated by the scrambler repeats itself every (2**7 - 1 = 127)
bit periods. Since the pseudo-random output of the seventh register is
XORed with the payload data, a user could transmit a pattern that
continuously repeats the 127-bit pattern from the seventh register of the
SONET scrambler. When the pattern from the seventh register is aligned with
the 127-bit pattern from the malicious user, the line will see an all zeros
pattern.

So, to zero out the scrambler, the user 
1- must know the order of the scrambler and its polynomial
2- must have access to the whole payload envelop
3- must use a pattern of (2**n - 1) bits generated by the polynomial
4- must repeat its pattern enough until it gets in phase with the output
of the scrambler

Paul

At 07:06 AM 5/11/99 -0500, Ed Grivna wrote:
>
>> 
>> Mick:
>> 
>> It is 1 / (2**70) for randomized data. A properly designed scrambler system
>> produces completely random line data independent from the data being
>> transmitted. A constant string of zeros or any fabricated packet can be
>> encoded but the line data will still random.
>> 
>> Paul
>
>The problem is we are not dealing with randomized data.  With reference
>to a "properly designed scrambler," I can guarantee you that given 
>any scrambler based on a polynomial of degree N, you can zero it out with 
>the correct string of around  2N bits.  This is not boasting or
grandstanding,
>this is mathmatical fact.  The SMPTE scrambler polynomial has a high order
>term of x^9, and it can be cleared with two characters of data.
>
>This doesn't say that scrambling can't be used.  But it does mean that
>a long polynomial needs to be employed to reduce (not remove) the 
>probability of zeroing out the scrambler.  The longer the polynomial, the 
>greater the latency of encode and decode, and the longer to re-sync if
>it gets confused by bad data.  Also, the longer the polynomial, the greater 
>the error propagation; i.e., a one bit error in the serial stream will mess 
>up more characters before its effects have propagated out of the descrambler.
>
>The basic SONET polynomial has a high order term of only X^7, while the ATM
>srambler is X^43+1. The SONET scrambler can be cleared quite easily, while
>the ATM scrambler is quite difficult to clear.  The protocol overheads in
>these interfaces contain data that will keep the scrambler seeded, it is
>the associated data field that can clear it out.
>
>Then you have the issue with the lack of special characters.  With respect
>to the 802.3 signal stream, yes scrambling has been used before, but at the
>physical layer there has always been a mechanism to indicate non-data
>signalling; i.e., a five level code where four levels are used for data
>and the fifth is for signalling.
>
>This is difficult in an NRZ stream unless you change the stream from 
>character based to add an overhead bit every so many characters. The 
>telcos use this ALL the time.  In a T3 system they add 1 bit out of 
>every 170 for synchronization and framing. 
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Grivna
>Cypress Semiconductor
>
>> 
>> At 03:50 PM 5/10/99 -0700, Mick Seaman wrote:
>> >A string of 70 zero's does not have a 1/2**70 chance of occuring.
>> >Zeros and other particular repeating patterns are really much more common
>> >than that, as a look at carefully initialized memory will show. There
should
>> >be no restriction on transferring memory maps on any other particular data
>> >around.
>> >Any statistical argument has to very carefully assess assumptions as to
>> >distribution and independence of variables.
>> >
>> >Mick
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>