It is no secret to the Industrial Ethernet folks that consideration of the extreme environmental conditions found on a manufacturing floor have never been a consideration within IEEE 802.3.
Conversely, in the earliest days of networking the indeterminate/asynchronous timing characteristics of Ethernet were considered to by the manufacturing folk to be completely unsuitable for use in a manufacturing environment. They then went off on their own, first to 802.4 and when that did not pan out off to other arenas. We have hardly heard from them since. In the meantime, we continued on our merry way in pursuit of our original goal, that of high bandwidth in an environment that was driven by that found in the office and light industrial market. (They are by no means unique, on-board automotive networking is another fine example.)
While there is very little text that addresses this in our standard, our tradition harkens back to the the text in the introduction section (1) of the original DEC/Intel/Xerox Ethernet Specification which says:
"Use in situations demanding resistance to hostile environments, real-time response guarantees, and so on, while not specifically excluded, do not constitute the primary environment for which the Ethernet is designed."My personal belief is that text is still operative (despite the improvement in real time response made available through full duplex and the even more stringent desires being put forth by 802.1 AV Bridging) in the dominant philosophy of operation of 802.3.
Best regards,
Geoff
Geoffrey O. Thompson
GraCaSI
158 Paseo Ct
Mountain View, CA 94043
<thompson@xxxxxxxx>
On 7/8/09 6:13 AM, Shadi AbuGhazaleh wrote:
I am tending to think along the same lines as Martin.The industrial environment has some pretty harsh conditions. Accordingly, the cabling and vendor standards dealing with industrial facilities require that when non-industrial hardened devices/applications are used that they should be protected or isolated (through the use of higher performing components OR appropriate shielding, conduit, enclosures, etc.. Ref: TIA-1005) to make sure that the systems (cabling and active hardware) do not experience the levels of high noise.It seems that Bob is essentially asking 802.3 to create new requirements on noise immunity and address the needs of the industrial environment directly. Also seems to me that this request is inclusive of ethernet, not only PoE, as the question of BER has been asked and I would offer that Ethernet operation in noisy environments (up to 10V/m) is more susceptable than PoE. Is this something that 802.3 is looking to do? If not, then Hugh's response is appropriate, I would just add some pointers to appropriate environmental/cabling standards such as TIA-1005 in combination with ANSI/TIA-568-C for Bob to use in configuring the industrial systems.
Regards,
Shadi AbuGhazaleh
Development & Technology Manager, Hubbell Inc.
sabughaz@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patoka, Martin
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 8:44 AM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Fw: Rejected posting to STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Bob,It sounds like you have additional information about the incident not included in the liason letter.What can you tell us about the electrical environment of the PSE, channel, and (non-PD) end-point device discussed in the liason? What can you tell us about the physical channel implementation?Can you provide the specific requirements that you allude to in your posting?Thanks and Regards,MartinMartin Patoka
Systems Engineering Manager
Texas Instruments
O: 214-567-5487
mpatoka@xxxxxx
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert E Lounsbury
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 5:53 AM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [8023-POEP] Fw: Rejected posting to STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Message from Robert E Lounsbury <relounsbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Wed, 8 Jul 2009 06:38:06 -0400 -----
Hugh Barrass <hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx> owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx, STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 - Power over Ethernet performance in industrial environments
Hello Hugh, Dave,
Please read the liaison letter. Please disregard the damaged device. The damaged device only served to start the discussion in IEC. The letter is asking two very basic questions that might precipitate some considerations in the specification. First Dave mentions noise coming from the device loads back onto the channel. This was one of the questions in the letter. Dave alludes to violating the specification. Please point to where in the specification where noise produced and coupled back to the PoE channel is defined, limited or otherwise discussed. Second the letter asks if the PoE TG has considered analyzed what might happen if there is Radiated, conducted or other environmental noise in the area where the PoE system is installed might cause problems during the probing process. This has nothing to do with any design flaws of a product but merely the environment. If you consider Industrial noise levels as defined by IEC out of the scope for 802.3at, then please respond indicating so. Then we might be in a position to disallow PoE in industrial. Thanks for your time
Regards
Rockwell Automation
Bob Lounsbury – Principal Engineer
Control and Visualization Business
1 Allen-Bradley Drive, Mayfield Heights, OH. 44124
Tel: +1.440.646.4297
Fax: +1.440.646.3076
Cell: +1.440.610.4485
email: relounsbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hugh Barrass <hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx 07/07/2009 01:51 PM
Hugh Barrass <hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx>
STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.pdf
>].
>
>Best regards,
> David Law
> IEEE 802.3 Working Group Chair
>
>
>
******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.