[EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] Copper schedule in LAX (and beyond...)
Vladimir, Patrick, all,
First of all, I would prefer a decision for line code the sooner the better.
Here are some considerations though:
I think if we are dealing with Public network only, then it is much easier
to deal with issues you brought up. After all for short public loops (i.e.
2.5 kft) VDSL and 100Base-CU both are saying that they will comply with
plans 998/997. As everybody in this committee may know that there is a dual
track std in ANSI for VDSL due for a decision in Q1/03. Mean time TDD
methods can meet the spectral compatibility and qualify to be used in public
network. The reason it was decided that we go through this process and make
a call by Q1/03 was because of the field experience, and to my knowledge
nobody has rollout VDSL 998/997 yet for field trial purposes. In order to be
consistent with the roots of VDSL, 998/997/TDD I suggest to plan for line
code vote in similar time frame as ANSI. Vlad, I don't think that equipment
vendors are going to deliver in middle of 04, rather, I think people will
start field trial by Q1/Q2-02 based on these technologies.
The only new method proposed here that is very valuable and different is 10
Base-T4 which delivers 10 Mbps over 12 kft (AWG-24) and has in fact traction
with RBOCS. Because there is a real business case behind it. I think if we
like to pursue that as a group I will certainly support to move faster, i.e.
Q4/02 for a decision, whatever Howard, Hugh, and the rest of the team can
manage to mobilize. But there we have pay a lot more attention to Spectral
Compatibility because of a lot basis services are co-existing with this
service in the bundle.( I don't think that would be an issue)
Now, if we also like to focus on in building wiring, I think there is little
data, measurement, or simulations of channels that we have access to, or
they are unavailable. High frequency FEXT and NEXT still is a problem,
although Howard in our last conference call pointed us to 10 Base-T and in
bundle characterization.
Thanks
Behrooz
-----Original Message-----
From: Stanley, Patrick [mailto:pstanley@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 8:09 AM
To: 'Vladimir Oksman'; Behrooz Rezvani
Cc: 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] Copper schedule in LAX (and beyond...)
Vladimir,
I agree. You bring up a good point. As I state in my presentation that I
will make this week, the NEXT and FEXT models currently used in the
standards are based on a large number of measurements (>90,000). Reproducing
this level of measurement in order to replace the models is a substantial
amount of work, and could slow down development of the standard.
Regards,
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Oksman [mailto:oksman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 10:32 AM
To: Behrooz Rezvani
Cc: 'Hugh Barrass'; 'Howard Frazier'; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] Copper schedule in LAX (and beyond...)
Behrooz,
I think it is definitely a good idea to make a complete investigation
for
the loop plants, crosstalk coupling models and noise sources all over the
world.
However, it seems to me that we couldn't complete this huge work not even to
Nov
02, but even to Nov 03 on one hand, and, on the other hand, even Nov 02
sounds
too late. It actually targets us for a decisions regarding duplexing and
modulation technique to the middle of 2003 and for equipment, accordingly,
to
the middle 2004! I am not sure many people are looking for this long
process.
My view is, we can start right now from public networks, which are
rather
well known and specified, add all the available data on loops inside big
buildings and take this package as a primary environment to target EFM.
Later
on, as different new environments will show a good business case, we just
add
them to the existing models and improve the spec.
Vladimir
Behrooz Rezvani wrote:
> Hugh and Howard, All,
>
> Sorry that I have to leave Thurs afternoon for Stanford Conference on
> Copper, but here are some thoughts:
>
> one of the areas that I am interested to focus on is first and for most
the
> simulation environment. We have had couple of conference call on this
> subject in the past two months and we have made good progress.
>
> Here is the summary of what is needed (from everybody) and I certainly
like
> to see good contributions as I am trying to put EFM data rate analysis
> document together:
>
> We agreed we need to break copper loops in to two areas:
> Public Plant/Network and MxU Network
> We are collecting input right now and two groups are working together to
put
> this in to play:
>
> The first Item that we like to address is public loop plants. We hope to
> have an early draft document in Austin to discuss this. Hopefully by
January
> interim meeting we can close this! OK may be.
>
> Next we like to have an early draft of MxU loop plants in the presence or
> absence of public loops. This is a new area to everybody. It include
issues
> such as cable models, interaction of different cable types, etc. Based the
> early work that we are reviewing we like to close this by March or May
time
> frame (:))
>
> Next topic is modeling of all noise sources interferences and inclusion of
> all noise sources. A lot of Next and Fext models don't work very well.
This
> is important because we need more upstream bandwidth. Spectral
compatibility
> and Dynamic spectral Compatibility, stationary noise and non-stationary
> noise models are mostly new work that needs to be taken in to account. I
> really wish that we might get a handle of that and get some sense of it by
> May 02, may be even Nov 02.
>
> This is the ground work that we need to do allow simulation to be
evaluated
> fairly. The plan is to use as much work that is done by ANSI, ETSI and
> ITU-T. I have been in touch with various group in these organization to
get
> their participation here at EFM and we could all benefit from that.
>
> Thanks
> Behrooz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugh Barrass [mailto:hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:12 AM
> To: stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: [EFM-Copper] Copper schedule in LAX (and beyond...)
>
> All,
>
> First of all, I would like to apologize to all those who received two
copies
> of this
> e-mail. If you are interested in the copper track and didn't receive two
> copies then
> you need to register for the copper mailing list.
>
> If you are not interested in the copper track then stop reading here...
>
> Follow this link to read instructions for the mailing lists.
>
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/reflector.html
>
> Finally, the payload data....
>
> In LAX we will have 1.5 days of meetings to ourselves. The EPON people
will
> leave us
> alone and we can concentrate on Resistance, Inductance, Current Density
and
> other
> concepts which would otherwise upset the optical folk. Currently we have
15
> presentations submitted covering rate and reach; theoretical analysis; PMD
> proposals;
> general requirements and 1 new objective. My estimate is that we will
> comfortably
> cover these presentations on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning -
> leaving
> Thursday afternoon for free-range discussions before we rejoin the group
on
> Friday
> morning.
>
> I would like to use this "spare time" to (pre) discuss the new objective
and
> the
> simulation / test ad hoc. I would also like to allow some time for a
> breakout to
> discuss rate mechanism / operation (as I mention in my recap presentation)
> and any
> other (copper) business.
>
> Time is very short, so it will be hard to prepare for the Austin Plenary.
I
> suggest
> that we use the spare time and gaps to work towards the baseline
> presentations that
> will be needed in November. This means that you should all be trying to
seek
> out like
> minded people and sharing your ideas for November presentations.
>
> I will send a copy of my recap presentation on the copper reflector - it
> will also go
> onto the website.
>
> Hugh.