| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Dan and all, My team is working on the
following action items:
We
started with item 2 and I hope to present data by next meeting. Regarding
Item 1 we are designing now the test setup for having enough data for recommending
the best course of action. I would like
to have your opinion on the following: The
reason we are checking the behavior of a channel containing ALT A Midspan is
because we assume that it will affect the channel behavior at frequencies lower
then 1MHz when we suppose to find the BLW frequencies. My
question is: If our ultimate goal per the 350uH Ad Hoc is to ensure meeting the
minimum BER required so implementation will be transparent i.e. 350uH minimum
inductance will be only one way to achieve it and other ways are possible, THEN
meeting BER means also the effect on BER due too BLW. If this
is true, then why we care what is the Midspan transfer function at this low
frequency band. If inserting the Midspan to a compliant Switch+channel+PD (i.e.
a channel designed according 802.3 guidelines without compensation techniques
etc. such as using 100BT SmartBit generator and standard channel and load) and
the BER test pass then the Midspan is compliant if it fails it is not compliant
hence how the Midspan did it we don’t care and we don’t have to
specify anything new. Please
let me know your opinion. Thanks Yair From: Dove, Dan
[mailto:dan.dove@hp.com] Yair, At the last meeting you
mentioned that you had tested 100BASE-T with inline power on the data pairs and
found no problems. During an offline discussion, we discussed performing
testing with maximum length cables and the "Killer Packet" to ensure
that your testing did not miss the impact of baseline wander on your testing.
To assist, I sent you a copy of the Killer Packet (zipped binary) to
enhance your testing. Have you had an
opportunity to evaluate the impact of inserting power into the data pairs using
the Killer Packet since our discussion and do you plan to present on this? I think it would be
important to ensure that we fully characterize the exposure of inserting any
additional low-frequency poles into the channel on 100BASE-T signal
impairments.
From:
owner-stds-802-3-poep@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Hi Matt, Probably you didn’t
see my email which I ask not to have meetings on Friday. Friday and Saturday
are a non working days here like Saturday and Sunday' in Any way, please find
below my comments/opinion regarding the base line bucket: Comment #141: Comment #141 deals with
" The commenter state that
this column has no value and I disagree with him. This column has value in
which it specifies the range of maximum for better power management. It is true that when you
are using L2 you may not need this information however when using only L1, this
information has value. Regarding the argument
that it confuses the average reader with the minimum power required to keep the
port ON, I don’t see how it confused since the text is clear and if it
still confuse we can add clarification but it is not justifying changing the
level of information contained in this column. I suggest rejecting this
comment or ad clarification for the use of it in respect to 33.3.6. Comment #124: The commenter is basing
his argument on the following assumptions:
The
change it or modify it we need to td feasibility and economical
tests/simulations. Non of it has been shown or demonstrated.
Rational: The
current specification required to meet Rpd_d together with Cpd_d<0.15UF.
This is possible and proven feasible. Requiring
meeting Rpd_d with Cpd_d>>0.15UF is technically problematic due to long
time constants and false positive detection risks. There is a way to overcome
this problem by using ac signals with source and sink capabilities however it
requires technical and economical feasibility tests which if somebody present
such it will be easier to consider and asses its technical and economical
aspects.
I
suggest rejecting this comment unless serious technical work will be presented
to backup the changes suggested. Comment #13: This
comment is similar in principle to comment #124. Figures
33-8 and 33-9 are not mandating implementations. It
guarantees interoperability. Figure 33-8:
Figure 33-9:
The implementer can use any Thevenin equivalent of figures 33-8 or 33-9 which
allows the flexibility which we are looking for. In order
to allow such big changes it is requires proving feasibility with different
PSEs using different methods complying to the suggested remedy……!!! Unless
such proofs made I suggest to reject this comment. Yair
From:
owner-stds-802-3-poep@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Please find
attached material for discussion during this morning's baseline bucket ad hoc. On Dec 11, 2007 11:53 AM, Colleagues - |