RE: [10GBT-Modeling] RE: [10GBT-Cabling] [10GBASE-T] a channel capacityestim...
Sure. I have made a mistake on the sign of return loss (loss -> gain).
So the only thing I have changed since the first version I sent to you is
to correct the sign of the return loss (in dB) for positive to negative.
And this correction has slightly increased the channel capacity since the
actual return loss is weaker than the one with errors.
If you have any further question, please let me know,
"George Zimmerman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 02/24/2003 10:29:03 AM
Subject: RE: [10GBT-Modeling] RE: [10GBT-Cabling] [10GBASE-T] a channel
Do you have a list of the errata changed?
tel: (949) 581-6830 ext. 2500
cell: (310) 920-3860
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [10GBT-Modeling] RE: [10GBT-Cabling] [10GBASE-T] a channel
Chris, and everyone,
I have attached the latest copy of my channel capacity estimation
to this email. Please check it out. If you have any program to get it,
please let me. I can send you a copy directly.
(See attached file: i3e.m)
CDimi80749@aol.com on 02/24/2003 05:14:48 AM
Subject: Re: [10GBT-Modeling] RE: [10GBT-Cabling] [10GBASE-T] a
Can you please reply with a copy of the models you
had distributed in earlier e-mail?
Want to make sure a have the latest copy under discussion.
Thank you for your input. With the consideration of ANEXT, the Shannon
capacity of CAT-6 is 10Gbps by using the models presented in my
Accordingly, your calculation shows the Shannon capacity is 12Gbps. I
admit this is a significant difference. However, even with the 12Gbps
Shannon capacity, there is no way we can achieve 10Gbps effective
throughput over 100m CAT-6 cable if the ANEXT cannot be suppressed by