Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 - Power over Ethernet performance in industrial environments



Bob,

We specify that the channel must meet the requirements of TIA 568 (or
ISO) for whichever UTP PHY is specified. I think that such advice
regarding media in harsh environments is best left to the media
specification.

I do not think that the liaison indicates anything that warrants any
change to 802.3.

Hugh.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 4:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 -
Power over Ethernet performance in industrial environments

In reading Dan's suggestion, I find a similar problem with Hugh's
proposed text related to cabling.  I also do not recall but haven't
searched, and it may be implicit rather than explicit, anything in the
standard that requires system installers to make sure channel
characteristics are met in the environment installed.  This gets a bit
away from the plug and play assumptions that folk have about Ethernet.

It might be better to express this in a tactful way.  Specifically, that
"IEEE 802.3 does not specify implementations, and Ethernet products are
typically designed for enterprise environments.  While the standard may
provide margin for use of those products in more harsh environments than
the typical enterprise, the developers of the standard have not
considered all possible environments.  Industrial applications cannot be
approached with the plug-and-play attitude typical of most Ethernet
installations, but instead must be considered to be engineered networks,
where the system installer assures that channel characteristics are met
in the unusually harsh noise environment found in industrial
applications."  Or something similar.

--Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Heath
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:22 PM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 -
Power over Ethernet performance in industrial environments

All,

I concur with Dan's addendum to Hugh's comment.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dove, Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:36 PM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 -
Power over Ethernet performance in industrial environments

All,

I agree with Hugh's general theme, but I still see a need to add
language into the UTP clauses that directs an implementer to avoid a
valid PD signature at the MDI if they are not building a PD. While Hugh
is correct that an Ethernet designer should be aware of the exposure
created by failing to pay attention to clause 33, such changes would
eliminate the exposure completely.

Its my opinion this is a maintenance issue though, and not an 802.3at
issue.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of George Zimmerman
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 1:45 PM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 -
Power over Ethernet performance in industrial environments

Hugh - I agree with your well-written response.
-george

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hugh Barrass
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:51 AM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 -
Power over Ethernet performance in industrial environments

David,

I can see that the liaison from IEC has caused some interesting
discussion amongst PoE experts (and myself), however I think that we are

being asked to comment on what may well be design flaws in specific
products and I do not think that is a healthy discussion within 802.3.

I suggest that we should send a reply along the following lines:

==========================================

The problems described in your liaison spurred some vigorous discussion
amongst our task force members regarding possible causes for the damage
that you describe. However the members are not aware of any similar
reports that might indicate a systemic problem with 802.3 compliant
equipment. It is the opinion of the members of IEEE P802.3at Task Force
that the standard allows product manufacturers to build reliable and
interoperable equipment that will meet the requirements for supplying
power over Ethernet in many environments. However, the standard does not

define how a manufacturer must build the product to ensure reliability
or how an installer should ensure that the media is suitable for correct

operation within the standard. We suggest that you should work with the
equipment manufacturers involved to determine whether the failure is the

result of a systemic problem with the standard and whether a specific
amendment may be required.

With respect to the bit error rate performance of 802.3 links when power

is being supplied over the same link, the members of IEEE P802.3at Task
Force believe that a compliant system supplying power over an 802.3 link

will not perturb the channel sufficiently to degrade the performance of
the underlying link. However, it is the responsibility of the product
manufacturer to ensure that noise introduced by the load does not couple

to the link and violate the power over Ethernet specifications or the
channel specifications required for the link. Similarly it is the
responsibility of the system installer that the channel characteristics
are met in the presence of environmental noise.



===========================================

Hugh.

David Law wrote:

>All,
>
>The IEEE 802.3 Working Group has received a liaison letter from IEC 
>TC65/SC65C/JWG10, Industrial process measurement, control and 
>automation/Industrial networks with respect to Power over Ethernet 
>performance in industrial environments.
>
>I just wanted to inform you that I intend to delegate the generation of
a 
>draft response to the IEEE P802.3at DTE Power Enhancements Task Force 
>during the plenary week in July. The draft response will be consider
and 
>then voted upon at the closing IEEE 802.3 Working Group plenary as part
of 
>the IEEE P802.3at closing report. You therefore may wish to review the 
>letter prior to the meeting, the letter can be accessed at the URL [ 
>http://www.ieee802.org/3/minutes/jul09/0709_IEC_SC65C_JWG10_to_802_3.pd
f 
>].
>
>Best regards,
>  David Law
>  IEEE 802.3 Working Group Chair
>
>  
>