Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
You are probably going to be surprised by my next statement, based on my insistence that 3P+1 powering (Irev) was a PSE problem. Or maybe not, because my logic is 100% the same: the
onus to solve the problem is on the device that causes the problem. It’s not our job to write a design guide such that they won’t have any problems.
This is the PD’s problem. The PD designer knows he wants to use MPS to shut down and he has to design it accordingly. If he puts in a bridge that is susceptible to Irev, he needs
account for this when he implements his desired feature. So I would say, the PD designer cannot use some of the FET bridges that have been shipped in the past – or he needs to remove 1.3mA from his ‘shutdown budget’, in other words: less than 0.7mA for the
rest of the device. OR he could use LLDP to have the PSE shut him off.
There are many ways to get this solution and none of them involve adding any more text to the standard. Chad Jones Tech Lead, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3 From:
Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> I agree that it doesn’t affect
the case when the PD is disconnected from the cable. I was referring to the case that the PD is connected and wants power removal. The question if it is rare or not, is irrelevant since it
is already in the spec and we need to address it somehow and meet it. I agree that the solution can be that PDs that do want to have power removed can set their Iport_mps value for power removal to be lower
than (4mA-1.3mA)=2.7mA. However, in order to make this clear to the PD vendor (since Irev is in the PSE section) I believe that we need to add text to the PD MPS section as follows (or equivalent): Proposed remedy: Add the following text in clause 145.3.9, page 222 text after line 49: "When a PD is operating under 3-pair mode conditions, the value of IPort_MPS as seen by the PSE over the powered pair may increase by
Irev (see See 145.2.10.4, 145.3.8.8 ). As a result, the PD may need to set IPort_MPS to alower value than IPort_MPS min to ensure power removal." Yair From: Lennart Yseboodt [mailto:00000b30a2081bcd-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
EXTERNAL EMAIL Hi Yair, Your analysis is correct, the reverse current is added to the PDs own current. I don't consider this an issue we need to do anything about however: - it does not impair the primary function of MPS in any way (to remove power when the PD is disconnected) - it only affects PDs that use the method of removing MPS in order to have the PSE remove power, I would say this is pretty rare; - PDs that do want to have power removed can accommodate for the maximum 1.3mA of reverse current (draw less than 2.7mA of their own) Note that reverse current only happens under 3-pair conditions, and then the 'must disconnect' current level is 4mA for PSEs. Kind regards, Lennart On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:03 +0000, Yair Darshan wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1 |