Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
The below informal thread discusses Jitter, TDECQ, error floors and alternate measurements which may be of interest to the broader 802.3dj optics community.
Chris
From: Chris Cole
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2024 9:02 AM Subject: Re: P802.3dj SMF topics discussion group
We understand the interoperability limitations of reference receivers, which led the IEEE to move away from ITU-T style specifications. However, hopefully we should also understand the reasons waterfall curves are the single most important measurement in communications.
Shannon has something to say about that.
The 802.3 specs we have in place provide guardrails against most reference receiver corner cases, which did not exist when horror stories got seared into our collective consciousness. Together with equalizers, they are good enough that we don't even need an
additional reference receiver definition. DUT Tx to DUT Rx sweeps (BtB and over fiber) will smoke out what we are worried about, like Tx low frequency jitter. The problem was identified through BER, so the solution is staring us in the face. We spec a floor
and ignore the absolute sensitivity. We get the added benefit of a more accurate D than in TDECQ.
Chris
From: Ali Ghiasi
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2024 3:09 PM Subject: Re: P802.3dj SMF topics discussion group
Hello Adee,
Jitter in the context of J3/J4U TDECQ using SSPRQ actually does a better job capturing low frequency jitter down to ~1.6 MHz. The key thing is to operate the module in mission mode otherwise no jitter will propagate through.
If we need to go beyond what TDECQ with SSPRQ can capture then we can use the well established SONET style jitter generation as we as explored in the following presentation from Me Karl and Pavel:
We have no experience with PAM4 transmitter and wide band jitter generation and will take some time to develop reasonable limits. Before we add whole new test we need to better understand cost-value, and how much do we gain after specifying TDECQ test mission
mode.
The opinion of the above presentation authors is that even if we added jitter generation, we could not reasonably discriminate between good and marginal transmitters. The question for authors ofhttps://www.oiforum.com/bin/c5i?mid=4&rid=5&gid=0&k1=54499
is why receiver SNR=22.47 dB but BER is only 3E-6, unless we understand the test condition better not sure we will be able to address the underlaying issue!
Thanks,
Ali Ghiasi Ghiasi Quantum LLC Office (408)352-5346
From: Hossein Shakiba
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2024 1:01 PM Subject: RE: P802.3dj SMF topics discussion group Hi Bill,
For the MLSE, noise coloring causes the “sequence of samples” to be correlated and the method calculated the sequence noise statistics with consideration of the correlation through the sequence. Here I guess we are not facing a “sequence of samples” in time.
Regards, Hossein
From: Bill Kirkland
I was “hoping” they could borrow on how you dealt with impact of colored noise on the stats, SER/ COM.
From: Hossein Shakiba
Hi Bill,
Thanks for including me. I suppose If the TDECQ reference receiver will require an MLSE (as far as I know, so far it doesn’t), the statistics (PDFs, CDFs, …) can be used for MLSE performance evaluation, similar to COM.
Regards, Hossein
From: Bill Kirkland
Added Hossein because of my comments below.
1st, I am not following this in depth, but it strikes me that folks are trying to take the TDECQ measurement and make it do things it wasn’t intended to do.
I would suggest that enabling a TDECQ signal capture, could trigger other measurements that are not captured by the TDECQ spec itself.
E.g. In radio we have an EVM measurement, but there are a lot of useful other diagnostic measurements that come about from the EVM measurement,
Nor was TDECQ intended to anticipate the decoded error performance. Rather it is more like the COM Tool. Both TDECQ and COM Tool look at PDFs/CDF’s, i.e statistics.
There is a reason Noise is described by 4 letters, AWGN, A-additive, W-white (uncorrelated), G-Gaussian (probability), N – Noise.
I am wondering if the data collected in TDECQ, could be used to generate the statistics that Hossein has used to predict MLSD and DFE performance.
Having said that I don’t think TDECQ is the appropriate “metric” that doesn’t mean that the data TDECQ collects couldn’t be processed to determine another metric .
Of course the device being measured, should be set up appropriately (Ali’s presentation).
Thanks to all those looking into this!!
Bk
From: Mike Dudek
I agree with what Adee is saying except that I would say that TDECQ covers the effect of jitter on the average bit error ratio. I agree that it does not cover the degradation in post FEC performance with good average bit error ratio that can be caused by low frequency jitter. However J4u also doesn’t discriminate between high frequency jitter and low frequency jitter so I think evidence that a J4u spec would help without failing good transmitters should we provided before we add an additional specification requirement (and possible false fail probability) to the standard. A more discriminating test may be required.
Also I would point out that a similar problem may exist with low frequency amplitude noise and we may need to add a specification for that.
From: Adee Ran
Hi,
I didn’t attend the call with Ali’s presentation, but I’d like to express my support for this direction.
I would add that TDECQ requirements need to be met by a PHY (a module in a host) and not just by the PMD in isolation. The test with stressed input to the module’s AUI is relevant for modules tested independently, but it cannot be a requirement for the PHY (the host’s signal is what it is – it does not necessarily stress the module). We did not have explicit distinction between PHY requirements and PMD requirements in past PMD clauses, but we should consider new content that clarifies the difference.
I would also note that this proposal still doesn't cover low-frequency jitter which is not necessarily caught by TDECQ and can cause correlated errors. I still intend to suggest adding a J4u specification for the IMDD PMDs, as this is a straightforward measurement that can improve the quality of the standard.
</Adee>
From: Mark Nowell
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G-OPTX&A=1 |