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

RE: [10GBT-Modeling] RE: [10GBASE-T] Reflections

To be clear, are you referring to background noise or thermal noise?  Will you be assuming alien NEXT can not be cancelled at all?   If it could be mitigated by non signal processing means, would your conclusions change? 
-----Original Message-----
From: Sreen Raghavan []
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:28 AM
To: 'Geoff Thompson'
Subject: [10GBT-Modeling] RE: [10GBASE-T] Reflections


There was never any doubt about the viability of 1000BaseT over installed copper cabling during the development of the 1000BaseT standard. The only question was precisely how to do it (what line code, error correction, noise margins, etc). As you can tell from the debate that is going on this reflector, several individuals including myself have expressed serious doubts regarding 10GBaseT's theoretical feasibility over 100 meters of CAT5/6 regardless of precise line codes and implementation aspects. These doubts are well-founded since they were backed up with detailed MATLAB analysis programs. This is exactly why we are considering the Shannon Capacity limit now. My point was that regardless of the innovations in DSPs and line coding schemes that may or may not have happened since 1997, this limit is only a function of the properties of the cabling, background thermal noise and alien NEXT assuming that all other self impairments are canceled.





-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson []
Monday, March 03, 2003 3:17 PM
To: Sreen Raghavan
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Reflections



We did not use or even consider the
Shannon capacity of twisted pair cabling in our previous work.
We did do a lot of investigation into twisted pair cabling characteristics when we developed 1BASE5 and 10BASE-T. After that experience we decided that we didn't want to do cabling and worked very hard to:
        1) See that useful specs for our applications were developed in TIA and SC 25.
        2) Use those specifications.
When those cabling groups were starting on their specification of Cat 6 we did ask them to characterize the cabling well beyond the zero ACR point (their traditional cutoff point). They, in fact, did so. What all of this discussion is about is that they didn't go out far enough so support this project.


At 10:17 AM 3/3/2003 -0800, Sreen Raghavan wrote:

While there may have been innovations in DSP architectures since 1997, Shannon Capacity of CAT5/6 cables is a theoretical limit, and is unaffected by an individual s time horizon, or implementation sophistication.

Sreen Raghavan
Vativ Technologies, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
Friday, February 28, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: [10GBASE-T] Reflections


Nice to hear from a lot of the old crew that created the 1000BASE-T standard. I think that you can all take a bow, judging from what is happening in the market and the remarkable improvements in implementations achieved in three short years. But no good deed goes unpunished, as they say, so you guys earned the job (and created the need for) taking the next step up. Without a doubt, there are big jumps in the performance demanded and we don't have the luxury that 1000BASE-T enjoyed, namely the introduction of coding into the design. That has been done already. This time around, we have to take advantage of the residual capacity of the cabling, which we barely touched. 

On the other hand, you will agree that the levels of sophistication in analysis and implementation of DSP based systems has also increased dramatically since 1997, when GigT started in earnest.

While I enjoyed fond memories of your recollections of what we knew (or suspected) then and what we added later when we got smarter, it strikes me that that history is relatively immaterial today. That was then and our current circumstances are quite different. We now need to agree in the study group that it is feasible to do 10Gig on some form of twisted pair cabling at the desired length and go on to form a Task Force to do the hard work of coming to agreement on the precise details of the signaling and channel specifications.

It is clear that the channel specifications as written in 11801 will have to be modified and expanded for our use and installation qualification test parameters will have to be defined. This is more or less what happened for 1000BASE-T and seems to me to be a normal and reasonable step. After all, why should the cabling industry be expected to have already characterized cabling for the use of a standard for which we are still in the Study Group phase? As for installed cabling, we will see whether or how it may be qualified for 10G as part of our effort.

I look forward to our meeting in
Dallas and hope that we can get to work on a PAR draft there.

George Eisler