| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Matt, I think you are right. According to 802.3 clause 91.2: When SIGNAL_OK is FAIL, the rx_bit parameters of the FEC:IS_UNITDATA_i.indication primitives are undefined. This implies that if this signal is FAIL data is not reliable. According to Table 154-5, there are very specific conditions for SIGNAL_OK to be set to OK or FAIL, while for other conditions (last
row in the table) it is unspecified, so in my opinion it may be set to FAIL or OK, but you can not rely on it. To summarize: For the data to flow normally SIGNAL_OK must be set to OK. Note that this was the reason for changing the 802.3ct framing scheme (avoid frequent frame losses). You can see the details
in trowbridge_3ct_01_200528.pdf. Best regards, Leon From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
One of the key issues I believe that we as a group are going to need to resolve to move 802.3ct forward is the definition of when to set SIGNAL_DETECT to FAIL. As a part of that discussion, it would help me to better understand what happens when SIGNAL_DETECT is set to FAIL. My assumption is that a device would use that to determine that there was not a valid signal
and therefore could not operate. However, I’m also aware enough to know that I’m making an assumption which may or may not be correct. Therefore, it would help me greatly if some of those that know 802.3 better than I could help me understand the implications
to the system for setting SIGNAL_DETECT to FAIL, particularly when there is in fact a valid signal present. Thanks for any help.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-DWDM list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-DWDM&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-DWDM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-DWDM&A=1 |