| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All – it is nice when we agree on such things – however, please don’t forget – we will need to put together a set of project documentation and we need to get presentations supporting additional rate – as they
are likely to impact PAR scope. I want to say up front, I am not opposed to adding 1 gig – but I am concerned that this will make it harder to get a timely project started and done. We would need presentations I think to examine the broad market potential (need) and the technical feasibility (opportunity for savings) afforded with 1G – since we have been focused more on multigig phys
as the reference point against which optimization is measured. We have talked extensively about optimizing the clause 149 (802.3ch) multigig phys for cameras. We haven’t talked about any necessary optimizations for clause 97 (1000BASE-T1), which should be
substantially simpler (and therefore the need is less clear there) – so presentations would be desirable to reference in our CSDs and bring along the group... I think the CFI and the 802.3ch study group materials well documented the use of multigig for cameras.
I suspect a little expansion of the discussion of 1gig – particularly whether it has a future sufficient to justify work. Also, I’ve heard a few times people ask for a project that runs quickly. Please consider that additional features take additional time. 1gig ethernet has a different RS structure than multigig, and hence
we open some new work if we are expand to 1 gig… I’ve heard people say “we don’t want to come back here and do it again” – I’ve rarely (if at all) seen that happen. However, I have seen projects take a long time because too many separate items were put into
them, and only a few actually had long lives in the marketplace. Something to consider… From: Kirsten Matheus <Kirsten.Matheus@xxxxxx>
Hi all, I also agree that 1Gbps downstream should be considered (if it adds minimal effort to the specification work, while being able to be competitive, i.e. even simpler).
In respect to 25Gbps: from my perspective, this will stay exotic (and too power hungry and costly) for a while. I would not want to risk competitiveness to the core market (<= 5Gbps) in order to address something
exotic. If costs and complexity are of so little concern that someone wants to build a 25 Gbps Ethernet camera, IEEE already provides solutions (e.g. 802.3cy).
Kind regards, Kirsten Von: Kamal Dalmia <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I agree that 1G downstream is worth looking into. Regards Kamal From:
William Lo <will@xxxxxxxxxx> CAUTION: This email is from an external origin! Hi Ragnar, I think there was interest in 1G downstream rate and not just multi-gig.
Also I don’t think we closed out the possibility of considering 25G. The rest of the items I agree with.
Thanks, William From: Ragnar Jonsson <rjonsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
All, As promised, I am sending a short summary of the conclusion from the discussion of my presentation in the Monday meeting:
https://www.ieee802.org/3/ISAAC/public/082823/jonsson_3ISAAC_01_082823.pdf The main takeaways from the discussion is that the camera link physical layer needs to support the following: - Downstream data rates should be multi-Gig Ethernet data rates up to 10Gbps - Upstream data rate should be 100Mbps - Cost efficient power delivery is important - Should support both Shielded Balanced Pair and Coax - Compatibility with existing MAC specification is important - It is important to control latency Please let us know if I am missing any other key conclusion from the discussion. I am starting to work on presentations (more than one) to address the feasibility of camera link PHY that archives all of the above. As always, I would welcome any collaborators that may be interested in this
subject. Ragnar To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1 |