Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Joel, From my perspective, it would be nice if it works across ATCA, and there are a lot of people and companies that want to see it happen.
My use of the ATCA backplane was simple - people have faulted channel efforts in the past that I have done, because they are not real system backplanes. Using the ATCA backplanes allows me to avert that criticism. I do agree with Brad in the sense that having a standard configuration allows us to have some definition which helps. This is a very difficult area, one which you attempted to do by making a connector-less board, and now have some criticisms aimed at you for a similar criticism as what I have dealt with.
One thing that is very clear is that implementation can still make a very big difference between test data regardless of whether it is an ATCA channel or not, and I agree totally with that. That is why you get paid the big bucks, right? J
I still hate the use of the word "legacy." I believe the industry does want to us at least consider if we can come up with a solution that would address the stub effect, as this could potentially help a lot of existing backplanes out there. Even with counterboring, you might still have some stub effect, depending on how you implement it in your system. These are the kind of effects that would happen in Cases 6 and 7 that I provided. Hell, Case 7 meets the channel model out to 11.5 GHz and was still a very challenging channel to get working. Case 6 is minor compared to some of the stubs that we both know are out there. If we can't make Case #6 work, then others will be even less likely. However, some testing (real and simulation) has shown that some channels with these stubs can be made to work. There will be a trade off, as you pointed out, and I believe that those facts should come out of the analysis, and then that influences the decision process.
John
-----Original
Message-----
Brad, Joel,
I want to touch on your point #4. While I agree that this is not an ATCA standard, let's not forget that this effort wouldn't have happened if ATCA hadn't adopted 1G and XAUI. The primary concern that I have is that if I want to build a backplane, the only "standardized" backplane out there is ATCA. I feel that if the Task Force ignores this backplane standard, then the Task Force is limiting its broad market potential. This would be paramount to 802.3 standards (that use cabling) saying "we've specified a channel model, but there is no cabling specification for this in the market." The end user is left to guess how to build the channel, and I can surely bet that in a competitive market, the story they get from each vendor will be slightly different. It is not that the Task Force has to use ATCA, but it does make for a good reference point to start from. This is what 802.3 has done in the past with all our 10G efforts: start with a known channel.
Cheers, Brad
|