Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
John,
To repeat the key take away point, we defined the CAUI-4 C2M interface with two FEC operating modes, one to support legacy PMDs (no FEC), and one to support
new PMDs (with KR4 FEC). The suggestion is that we now face an analogous situation, where we need one FEC operating mode to support legacy PMDs (those that use KR4 RS-528 FEC), and one to support new PMDs (those that will use KP4 RS-544 FEC).
Chris From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx]
Chris, You are mistaken. The FS FEC was developed and a 4 lane solution was developed but it was not CAUI-4. That was done in 802.3bm. There is no way I would ever try to steal that credit away
from Dan Dove who had the fortitude of a saint with that effort. I think the confusion is coming from FEC and non-FEC protected interfaces. From what I see
802.3bj RS-FEC clause developed to support the cr4, -kr4, -kp4
802.3bm developed CAUI-4 and specified its operation to 10^-15 without FEC. However the architecture itself can be done in such a way that the CAUI-4 is carrying either
non-FEC or FEC protected data. 802.3bm also developed -sr4 where FEC is mandatory. So the AUI based on 25Gb/s signaling can be independent of whether there is FEC or not. I think everyone is right, but it clearly points out we have to be very specific with language. John From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
CAUI-4 with KR4 RS-528 FEC was developed in the P802.3bj project you led to first support CR4. P802.3bm then defined SR4 with CAUI-4 with KR4 FEC. This enable
subsequent efforts to quickly define optical PMDs that use KR4 FEC. P802.3bm also defined CAUI-4 with no FEC to support existing PMDs; LR4 and ER4. So coming out of 802.3bm we had two CAUI-4 operating modes, one without FEC for backwards compatibility, and one with FEC for new PMDs.
From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx]
Reading the spec – it looks more like the specification of CAUI-4 is done not assuming FEC, but a port type may include FEC that could go over the CAUI-4. From: Rick Rabinovich [mailto:rrabinovich@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Correct, CAUI-4 does not include FEC. Rick Rabinovich Hardware Architect – Signal Integrity Phone: +1 (818) 208-7328 26601 W. Agoura Rd. Calabasas, CA 91302 US visit:
www.ixiacom.com From: Gary Nicholl (gnicholl) [mailto:gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx]
Perhaps, but 802.3bj did not define CAUI-4 and Chris’s comment was specifically on CAUI-4. Gary From:
Rick Rabinovich <rrabinovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Gary, Thank you for bringing this up . CAUI-4 defined in IEEE802.3bm was specified without FEC to eliminate the latency incurred. Perhaps Chris was also referring to 4x25G as defined in IEEE802.3bj which includes RS-FEC for 100GBASE-CR4. Cordially, Rick Rabinovich Hardware Architect – Signal Integrity Phone: +1 (818) 208-7328 26601 W. Agoura Rd. Calabasas, CA 91302 US visit:
www.ixiacom.com From: Gary Nicholl (gnicholl) [mailto:gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx]
Following on from the discussion this morning I checked 802.3bm and there is only a single operating mode for CAUI-4. CAUI-4 C2M is defined in Annex 83E. There is only one operating mode and that assumes no FEC. There is no separate FEC operating mode, where some of the FEC gain is used to relax the CAUI-4 electrical specifications. In 802.3bm if RS-FEC is being used, it is carried completely transparently over the CAUI-4 interface, and all of the FEC gain is used for the PMD (i.e. 100GBASE-SR4). The CAUI-4
specification is completely independent of whether FEC is being used on the link or not. Perhaps this is what Chris meant by “two CAUI-4 operating modes” on the call this morning, even though from a CAUI-4 perspective there is only a single operating mode? Another way to state this is that the FEC requirements for the host are defined by the PMDs to be supported and not the CAUI. Gary |