Re: 64/66 system benefits and ad-hoc agenda
Dear Henning,
> "Henning Lysdal" <hl@xxxxxxx> writes:
> As I recall, the presentation you gave with Rick Walker, the work is
> almost done, so I don't imagine there will be much debate on the
> ad-hoc reflector. How do you propose we proceed with getting a
> proposal together to bring to the HSSG as soon as the standards
> process is officially started?
The work is not done yet, and there is certainly room for input,
especially on verifying that the design choices that I've made in
relative isolation are truly good choices for the whole community.
Since the last meeting, the code has been strengthened to address
hamming distance issues. This was done by redefining the TYPE bytes and
CONTROL codes from those presented in Kauai.
I've also examined the effect of potential scrambler polynomials and
error-multiplication on CRC32. I now have a scrambler which (I believe)
does not degrade the error coverage of CRC32, and which can be shown to
make malicious jamming infeasible. If anyone is interested in verifying
my analysis, I'll be happy to make my code available.
I hope to post a summary of these changes soon and am very interested in
peer review and suggestions for improvements. However, time is rapidly
running out before the holiday break, so this might have to wait until
2000.
Here's a short outline of issues that I'm hoping to address:
Code description
o training patterns
o mapping tables
o Serialized Byte/Bit order w.r.t. HARI
Scrambler
o discussion of jamming probability
o polynomial recommendation
o 10GbE CRC error performance
o scrambler schematic
Key feature comparison to SONET, 8B/10B
o transition density
o Baseline wander vs AC-coupling pole frequency
o Hamming distance analysis
o EMI (spectral) properties
Synchronization technique
o hunting by bit-slipping
o handshake on training patterns
Best regards,
--
Rick Walker