| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Tingting, thank you for bringing this discussion to the reflector. I have changed the topic on the thread so that people can follow the discussion. George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D. Chair, IEEE P802.3dg 100BASE-T1L Task Force 2nd Vice Chair, IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee CME Consulting, Inc. 1-310-920-3860 From: stds-802-3-spep2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <stds-802-3-spep2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of zhangtingting (O) Hi Brian, The presentations for June Ad Hoc show kind of consensus on RS-FEC, dual-mode PCS, and block coding. The main difference is using 8B6T or 4B3T. Regarding 8B6T with partial response, I have the following comments:
1.
ML detection is used for 6-tuple decision to get the performance gain. For each received 6-tuple with noise, every Euclidian distance calculation needs 6 multiplication. Considering 430 reference 6-tuples, 2580 multiplications are needed.
The detection complexity is even 2x higher than DEC. Please correct me if I am wrong.
2.
8B6T performance gain is achieved by referring to a
calculated theoretical SNR of 17.9dB. For an ideal channel with only AWGN, simulated BER should be close to theory. However, the results show that in the case of AWGN, 8B6T with partial response requires higher SNR than 4B3T at the same BER. More details
of the simulation can be found from the attachment.
3.
The primary reason of using 8B6T is to achieve coding gain for long-reach transmission. Considering FEC for long distance and high ML detection complexity, 8B6T seems to be a bit overdesigned for 802.3dg. After all, process industry
requires a low-power 100BASE-T1L PHY. Thank you very much. Best wishes, Tingting To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1 |