During welch_3dJ_01a_2311 Q&A, an assertion was made that the presentation proved that there is no error floor because it showed a single point BtB measurement with an impressive BER.
That is an incorrect conclusion. A single point BtB measurement is encouraging, and suggestive of overall good performance, but it is not proof. For that we need waterfall curves.
It may help to understand that waterfall curves are not just an aesthetic format choice, but the foundation of communication.
It starts with Shannon-Hartley theorem: C = BW ln(1
+S/N)
We have generally accepted that when BW (bandwidth) changes we need a new set of measurements. No one would make a proposal for a new rate, for example 200G/L, and claim that 50G/L or 100G/L measurements demonstrate technical feasibility.
The same holds for the S/N term. It is insufficient to show a single point measurement, unless one can guarantee that in operation that S/N is the only operating point that will be seen by the receiver. If we specify a range of S (power) that a receiver will see then we must measure over that full range, and ideally beyond to show margin.
If we look at a single point BtB measurement with power level unspecified, it just means that at the unknown power level we get a good BER. It doesn't tell us where within the specified power range the point falls, which means that there could be a much higher error floor at a lower power level, or more importantly at a higher power level. This is what often happens. Overload problems arise as power is increased even when the error floor at mid power range is low.
The point has been made that all that matters in 802.3 is 75%. However, let's hope that technical feasibility is based on more than subjective opinion, and instead on objective measurements.
Thank you
Chris
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1