| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dan, I agree that measurement results for this would be desirable. I’m not sure, however, that they will be “relatively easy to capture”. Most device manufacturers
need to operate with a high yield against the eye mask test, so finding a
population of devices with a significant number of failures against the
existing test may not be very easy. One way forward might be to operate a set of test devices at
progressively higher and higher bit rates until they fail the old and new eye
mask tests, then plot similar curves to the ones from my simulations. Regards, Pete Anslow |
Senior Standards Advisor From: Dove, Daniel [mailto:dan.dove@xxxxxx] Hi Pete, This is good stuff. I have a question though. It seems like some
experimental/empirical measurement data could be included to bolster the
theoretical arguments. I would think they are relatively easy to capture by
finding a set of transmitters that marginally meet the existing limit, and then
comparing the results against the new limit. These transmitters should be
captured from a range of devices to provide some distribution in properties.
From: owner-stds-802-3-maint@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-maint@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anslow, Peter Jonathan, Since the eye mask test used in Clause 68 and 802.3ba allows
some of the samples to be within the mask, an alternative statistical
transmitter eye mask test for Clause 52 will need to use a larger mask than the
current test so that it doesn’t allow a worse transmitter to pass that
the current test does. I have attached a presentation on the results of some
simulations aimed at investigating how much larger the mask should be. Regards, Pete Anslow |
Senior Standards Advisor From: owner-stds-802-3-maint@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-maint@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan King Dear all In advance of
the 802.3
revision document planned for release
for comment in March, I’d like to let
you know that I plan to comment on
it, with a proposal to add to Clause 52
an alternative optical
transmitter eye-mask test, which leverages the statistical
eye mask measurement techniques developed for 802.3aq and 802.3ba. The proposal
will be in the form of an annex associated with Clause 52
(assuming this is OK with the editors) since this seems to be the easiest
way to add an alternative test with minimal changes to the original
document. The motivation
is to offer a more accurate and repeatable optical transmitter
eye-mask test which can be a replacement for the 0-hit eye mask test used
on legacy 10GBASE-R, which provides the same, or
higher, level of confidence of test
results, and which will potentially lower
test time and test cost. 10G products continue to ramp up in
volume, and test time is a significant
bottleneck for low cost, high volume production. If you
wish to be involved in early drafting of the comment
and more
importantly drafting the text of the alternative eye-mask
test, please contact me by e-mail. best wishes jonathan Jonathan King Finisar Corp 1389 Moffet Park Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94089 ph: 1 408 400 1057 cell: 1 408 368 3071 e-mail: jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx cube A262 |