| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
If you know of cheap SONET chips, wheel 'em in. I think that is the main problem: cost. I know that the SONET stuff I have priced seemed to belong on a B-2 or Shuttle, pricewise.
Larry Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Brorson [SMTP:sdb@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 6:50 AM
To: 'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
Hi again,
I feel somehow compelled to join this conversation again -- for better or
worse.
It seems that we are trying to spec the ins and outs of an interface without
considering the higher level requirement on the optical signal: the jitter
performance.
People on this e-mail list have claimed that we can relax the SONET jitter
specs for 10GigE since the links will only be point to point. This may be
true, but remember that it depends upon the ability of the receiver to lock
onto the incoming data stream. And remember that an optical signal
transported over some distance (e.g. 40 km) picks up *significant* jitter
because of mechanical vibrations in the fiber, laser wavelength fluctuations
combined with fiber GVD, etc. Therefore, before we adopt relaxed jitter
specs, we need to know something about the desired fiber specs, Rx jitter
tolerance, etc.
If we need good Tx jitter performance, then a counter clocking architecture
-- like that in the OIF spec (i.e. stable RefClk into SerDes, and Tx clock
from SerDes to framer or MAC chip) -- is preferable. This is because the
stable clock directly drives the SerDes, facilitating a low jitter optical
stream at the source.
An added advantage to counter clocking is that we can leverage chips already
on the market which implement the OIF standard. Re-use instead of
re-invention is generally a good thing, unless there are important reasons
that currently available chips are unsatisfactory for us (e.g. they are too
expensive or have bad performance).
If after due consideration we decide that good jitter performance is not
required, then a simple forwarded clock scheme on the Tx side is sufficient.
On the other hand, this scheme doesn't allow reuse of the SONET chips. So
why re-invent the wheel unless there are real reasons to do so?
Anyway, before simply specifying the signals on the SerDes, I think that we
need to understand the jitter requirements better.
Cheers,
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:28 PM
To: HSSG
Subject: Re: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
Henning,
Nothing. RX_DATA, RX_CLK, TX_DATA and TX_CLK should do it. The rest should
be
left up to the implementation.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
"Lysdal, Henning" wrote:
>
> Stuart, Justin, all
>
> I appologize if my answer to the fairly simple question by Justin:
> "Are there any that uses the 155MHz as a reference for OC192?"
> has confused some.
>
> My point was to show technical feasibility, so I'll give it a second try,
> and see if we can get the discussion back on track:
>
> Given the choice between a 155.52MHz reference clock and a 622.08 MHz
> reference clock most of the transceiver vendors (SerDes customers), I
know,
> CHOOSE 155.52MHz.
>
> It might be easier to get good jitter performance with 622.08MHz
> (644.53MHz), but it is also more expensive.
>
> Maybe we should start discussing which parts of the OIF spec. should be
> copied for Ethernet rather than going over the details of which
frequencies
> goes where. I guess we can all agree, we need RXDATA, RX_CLK, TX_DATA and
> TX_CLK. What else do we need to specify?
>
> Regards,
>
> Henning
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Brorson [mailto:sdb@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 23. juni 2000 21:56
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
>
> I did not intend to "beat anybody silly". Rather, I wanted to point out
> that designing 10 Gig circuits with very low jitter is *hard*, and the
> difficulty is compounded by using lower speed reference clocks. My friend
> from (unnamed Danish company) unwittingly proved my point by announcing
that
> their 10 Gig SONET mux chip used a 155 MHz reference. Unfortunately for
> him, that chip is known in the industry for having jitter problems.
>
> More importantly, my real point was that the chip vendors (and the
standards
> body by extension) should not restrict the designer to using a lower speed
> (i.e. 155 MHz) clock. IMHO, designers want to choose either 155 or 622,
and
> that's the choice the 10 Gig SERDES chip designers correctly give them.
>
> In any event, I discovered after posting my initial message that the
> question of one vs. two clocks involved not the question of 155 vs. 622,
but
> rather how to synthesize both 9.95328 GHz and 10.3125 GHz (WAN vs. LAN)
> with only one reference clock. Read before you post, I always say!
>
> Just to put my two cents into this latter discussion: Since LAN line
cards
> and WAN line cards often use different optics -- and are therefore
different
> designs -- I see no reason that one needs to generate 9.95328 GHz and
> 10.3125 GHz off the same crystal. Different boards can have different
BOMs
> and call out for different oscillators.
>
> Stuart Brorson
> Axiowave Networks
> 100 Nickerson Road
> Marlborough, MA 01752
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com