Date: Monday, August 6, 2012 8:38 AM
To: "Salinger, Jorge" <Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tom Staniec <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
All
Let’s try this a little differently. Sub, mid and high splits are all defined as an RF return where the upstream toward the head end or distribution
hub and away from the subscriber.
Sub split is fairly clear because the top end frequency for the band pass is always 40 to 42 MHz.
Mid split is actually a little more difficult to define but generally set the top end frequency of the return band pass at 108 MHz where the cross
over frequency was in, what cable referred to as the start of the mid-band (Channel 14 – bottom edge 120 MHz).
To Jorge’s point High split is a little more difficult. Also there was “one more split” which we haven’t discussed and frankly can leave alone: super
or hyper or equal (approximately assuming an RF amplifier with a 400 MHz top end).
High split was typically considered to have cross over point below VHF channel 7 – 174 MHz hence the reason it started at the bottom of VHF channel
7 in the high band.
Super or Hyper – split was considered to be at or slightly below 220 MHz or above high band VHF channel 13.
As a point of note, the Super/Hyper/Equal roughly divided the upstream and downstream (toward the subscriber – away from the head end/distribution
hub) as noted with the caveat of the 400 MHz top end frequency.
It might be easier to craft the definitions we use around the frequency breakdowns shown above. Then the forward frequency use in each HFC network
would, in principle, be defined by the top end frequency of the fiber node or RF amplifier top frequency in conjunction with the coax spacing.
Tom
From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 11:44 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
NOTE: I'm resending this Email without the diagram that Hesham had sent because the size of the Email exceeds the maximum Email size allowed by the Email
reflector.
John,
I like your wording suggestion. Sounds much better than what I had, which now that I read it again sounded awkward as you said.
Marek,
If there is no further discussion, I suppose you will make the change in the definition, right?
Hesham,
I think we are saying the same thing, but in a different way. While there is agreement on the cross-over frequencies for low and mid-split systems, for the high split different folks consider different top ends, such as 200, 300 and even 400 MHz. But, what
we can all agree on is that the split is above 108 MHz, below which you would have a mid-split system. So, in the definition of high split, instead of referring to an absolute figure for the split as we did in low and mid-split systems, we just say "where
the split occurs above 108 MHz" (since there is no agreement on what that would be). Does that make sense?
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Hesham ElBakoury [mailto:Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 03:56 PM
To: John Ulm <julm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Salinger, Jorge
Cc: John T. Chapman <jchapman@xxxxxxxxx>; Emmendorfer, Mike <Mike.Emmendorfer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
I found the following illustration for the 4 types of split in a presentation by ARRIS that was presented by Dan Torbit in SCTE seminar on Engineering
for All IP.
Jorge was the moderator for this seminar.
It seems from this illustration that the high split crossover is 200MHZ instead of 108MHz.
John Chapman presentation in the last NCTA shows the following splits:
[JDS: I removed a diagram from Hesham's original Email to accommodate the size limit of the EPoC Email reflector]
I have seen other presentations from Cisco where high split crossover point is 200MHz (not 400MHz).
Is there a universal agreement on the definition of these splits ?
Thanks
Hesham
From: John Ulm [mailto:julm@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 12:25 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
The wording on the High split definition comes across as a bit awkward. I'd suggest we mirror the wording for Mid split:
High split: an HFC network requiring a diplex filter in which the upstream
is transported in spectrum below the downstream, and where the cross-over
between the upstream and downstream occurs above 108 MHz
Does this work?
-- john
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Salinger, Jorge <Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Marek,
I think that after much discussion on the terms low, mid, high and top
split, we ended up with the definitions included below. I *think* that the
version you have in the list of terms that you just sent is not the latest
one. Hopefully I did not miss a later update, but please correct me if I
am wrong.
Regards,
Jorge
Low split: also known as sub-split, an HFC network requiring a diplex
filter in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below the
downstream, and where the cross-over between the upstream and downstream
occurs between 42 and 54 MHz in 6 MHz channel plan systems and between 65
and 85 MHz in 8 MHz channel plan systems
Mid split: also known as extended sub-split, an HFC network requiring a
diplex filter in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below the
downstream, and where the cross-over between the upstream and downstream
occurs between 85 and 108 MHz
High split: an HFC network requiring a diplex filter in which the upstream
is transported in spectrum below the downstream in spectrum above 108 MHz
Top split: an HFC network requiring a triplex filter in which there are
two upstream bands, one transported in spectrum below the downstream with
the cross-over as per either the low, mid or high splits defined above,
and another transported in spectrum above the downstream.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012 8:45 AM
To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>Dear colleagues,
>
>The list of terms was updated, as shown in the attached document with
>tracked changes. Note specifically the extension in definitions of TDD and
>FDD and difference between these modes and half and full duplex, which I
>quote from the current version of P802.3bh (future 802.3-2012).
>
>I would also like to ask for input on missing terms and definitions. Is
>there any specific wording that you would like to see in the definition
>which is currently missing? If so, please do let me know.
>
>Thank you
>
>Marek
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>Sent: 26 July 2012 18:22
>To: 'STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>Dear colleagues,
>
>Attached please find the updated version of the list of terms. If I do not
>hear any additional requests for new terms by Friday EBD, I would like to
>proceed to collect proposals for definitions, especially for terms which
>do
>not have currently any definitions assigned to them.
>
>Marek
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>Sent: 24 July 2012 07:27
>To: 'Duane Remein'; 'STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>Duane,
>
>The 2008 version of the standard will be long gone by the time we get to
>any
>serious technical work, so the references were only incorrect indicating
>the
>standard's year.
>
>I believe some key terms should be included in the list, even if they just
>point to 802.3 specification, at least to prevent discussions on what is a
>single PHY, where people would interpret the term freely, in a manner not
>really consistent with 802.3 definitions
>
>Regards
>
>Marek
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 23 July 2012 12:15
>To: Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Duane Remein
>Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>Marek,
>Give that this is a tool to help everyone learn the "proper" language I
>don't see the need not to copy definitions from 802.3. I've done that for
>all the "see Std IEEE 802.3-2008, 1.4.xx" references in the attached. Note
>that your references were incorrect, were you using clause numbering from
>the maintenance draft and not the 2008 edition as indicated?
>Best Regards,
>Duane
>
>FutureWei Technologies Inc.
>duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx
>Director, Access R&D
>919 418 4741
>Raleigh, NC
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:48 AM
>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>Jorge, et al.,
>
>Here is the updated list of terms accounting for recent discussions and
>suggestions.
>
>I am off hiking
>
>Marek
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 23 July 2012 07:40
>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>All,
>
>Based on everyone's comments, I would suggest the following definitions:
>
>HFC: a hybrid fiber-coax cable network, in which fiber is used to transmit
>analog RF signals (note: this definition excludes the case where we have
>digital return, but I think that's OK)
>
>Low split: also known as sub-split, an HFC network requiring a diplex
>filter
>in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below the downstream, and
>where the split between the upstream and downstream occurs below 42 MHz
>in 6
>MHz channel plan systems and 65 MHz in 8 MHz channel plan systems
>
>Mid split: also known as extended sub-split, an HFC network requiring a
>diplex filter in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below the
>downstream, and where the split between the upstream and downstream occurs
>below 108 MHz
>
>High split: an HFC network requiring a diplex filter in which the upstream
>is transported in spectrum below the downstream, and where the split
>between
>the upstream and downstream occurs below 216 MHz
>
>Top split: an HFC network requiring a triplex filter in which there are
>two
>upstream bands, one transported in spectrum below the downstream occupying
>spectrum as per either the low, mid or high splits defined above, and
>another transported in spectrum above the downstream.
>
>
>Regards,
>Jorge
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Staniec <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: Tom Staniec <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 9:00 AM
>To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>>Good morning all
>>
>>I want to point to some historical perspective on the topics below.
>>
>>Historically:
>>
>>SUB-SPLIT: defined as a cross over point of 42 MHz where the sub-low
>>return is below 42 MHz with the forward being above.
>>
>>That places an EXTENDED SUB Split at 88 MHz, the start of the FM radio
>>band, where everything below 88 MHz would represent return and
>>everything above
>>88
>>MHz is the forward.
>>
>>MID-SPLIT defined the cross over point of the diplex filter as 108 MHz
>>where everything below 108 MHz represents the return band. Everything
>>above 108 MHz represents the forward.
>>
>>HIGH SPLIT is a little more difficult to define. Traditionally the high
>>split was placed above channel 13 top end frequency is 216 MHz where
>>everything below 216 MHz is return and above is forward network.
>>
>>TOP SPLIT is interesting and, again, historically first appeared as a
>>result of TWC FSN (Full Service Network - if my memory is correct) a
>>proof of concept network built in Orlando, Florida but was referred to,
>>in my recollection, as HIGH RETURN. So I think we need to rethink and
>>reflect on how this is described. To Jeff's point, today this reflects
>>a "tri-plex filtering system.
>>
>>Incidentally, HIGH RETURN, at the time was considered not feasible for
>>use for 2 reasons: 1- it placed a top end limit on what cable operators
>>could offer for services and limited channel growth and 2- it required
>>too much power to operate a return in for a communications channel.
>>With everything moving to an IP delivery which frankly could mean
>>unbounded channels the capacity limit in number 1 above may be moot. As
>>for number 2, because power amplifier technology has evolved along with
>>modulation, detection and error correction schemes, this may be more
>>attainable but also may require significant changes in network
>>architecture.
>>
>>I hope this presents some perspective which we may want to follow for
>>consistency at this point.
>>
>>Regards
>>Tom
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: <Finkelstein>, Jeff Finkelstein <Jeff.Finkelstein@xxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: Jeff Finkelstein <Jeff.Finkelstein@xxxxxxx>
>Date: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:03 PM
>To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>>To me top-split means a triplex scenario where a second split goes
>>above the downstream, not necessarily only for an upstream but that is
>>how we typically view it.
>>
>>Some scenarios have a legacy upstream being below the downstream, then
>>a second upstream being above the downstream spectrum. I think this is
>>what has been referred to as top-split in respect to this discussion.
>>
>>________________________________________
>>From: Noll, Kevin [kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:47 PM
>>To: Finkelstein, Jeff (CCI-Atlanta);
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>I have always understood top-split to mean that the upstream goes above
>>the currently designed upper plant limits. Usually this means >750MHz
>>or in some contexts >1GHz. Agreed that it isn't always clear on the
>>exact frequency, but it is clear that it is higher than a high-split.
>>
>>--kan--
>>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:30 AM
>>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>Jorge,
>>
>>I included both proposed definitions. Until clarification on the use of
>>top-split is made, I will keep the term in the list tentatively and
>>follow the discussion.
>>
>>Marek
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: <Kelsen>, Mike Kelsen <michael.kelsen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:32 PM
>To: "Salinger, Jorge" <Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>>Jorge,
>>
>>I'd lean towards #1 and keep the top split definition even if just to
>>say it was considered and dropped for various reasons.
>>
>>-Mike
>>
>
>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: 22 July 2012 10:28
>>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>Marek,
>>
>>I think I would correct the definitions of Mid- and High-split, as
>>follows:
>>
>>Mid split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>downstream occurs between 65 and 100 MHz
>>
>>High split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>downstream occurs above 100 MHz
>>
>>I still have some concern about a conflict between the definitions of
>>High-
>>and Top-split since they could overlap. Maybe we could solve it in one
>>of two ways: 1. add something like "the upstream transmission occupies
>>spectrum below the downstream" for low-, mid- and high-split
>>definitions, or 2. Get rid of the top-split altogether since we won't
>>be considering that option (as we discussed in the meeting in San
>>Diego).
>>
>>I wonder what others, especially my MSO/CL colleagues, think.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>Jorge
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 12:14 PM
>>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>><STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>Marek,
>>
>>To add to your list, here is a start for the definitions for the
>>various splits, and one additional definition (HFC):
>>
>>HFC: a hybrid fiber-coax cable network, in which fiber is used to
>>transmit analog RF signals (note: this definition excludes the case
>>where we have digital return, but I think that's OK)
>>
>>Low split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>downstream occurs below 65 MHz
>>
>>Mid split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>downstream occurs below 100 MHz
>>
>>High split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>>downstream occurs below 200 MHz
>>
>>
>>Top split: an HFC network in which the upstream is placed above the
>>downstream
>>
>>Hope this helps.
>>
>>Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>>Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:48 PM
>>To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>>>Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>>Following the discussion in the morning, focused on the preparation
>>>for September 2012 meeting, I would like to start discussion on
>>>terminology for EPoC, as attached to this email. What I did so far,
>>>was to go through the contributions discussed so far, to collect the
>>>terms which were used most commonly in presentations and discussions,
>>>with the special focus on terms generating heated discussions
>>>(infamous
>PHY).
>>>The content is colour coded:
>>>
>>>- a term in green indicates that we have already a solid definition in
>>>802.3, which ought to be reused without changes
>>>- a term in yellow indicates a term which is specific to EPoC, and I
>>>felt sufficiently capable to propose the pass at the definition
>>>- a term in red indicates a wording which I collected from one of
>>>contributions, but it requires either further discussion,
>>>clarification or confirmation whether it is needed at all.
>>>
>>>In the first pass through the list, please indicate whether any
>>>critical terms are missing or unnecessary. My intent at this time is
>>>to collect a complete list of terms, before we plunge into producing
>>>missing definitions.
>>>Please keep all discussion on the reflector so that we do not talk
>>>past each other or repeat proposals. I will try to keep the list
>>>updated as frequently as needed.
>>>
>>>Given that definitions are critical for technical discussions on
>>>individual proposals, I'd suggest we complete the phase of collecting
>>>terms by the 28th of July, at which time I will move to generating
>>>individual missing definitions.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Marek
>>>
>>>______________________________________________________________________
>>>_
>>>_
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>_
>>
>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>_
>>
>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>_
>>
>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>_
>>
>>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
<="" p="">