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

Re: [10GBT] Updated Tables


Your formula below is clearly wrong. It does not include the
LDPC(1723,1024) code rate anywhere ...

BTW, you got the PAM12 frequency wrong also :)


-----Original Message-----
From: stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG [mailto:stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of sailesh rao
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [10GBT] Updated Tables


I disagree. The 1E-12 BER point for the PAM8 proposal is at 19.9dB and
it should stay that way.

The proposed PAM12 approach is fundamentally flawed in its use of SNR
BER. If you compute the formula,

Fs = 10000/(4*log2(4N) -2)

for N=3, you will find that PAM12 should be running at 810MHz instead of
the supposedly "optimized"  825MHz. If you plug in N=2 in the above
formula, you will find that Fs is  1000MHz, which is as it is proposed
for the PAM8 approach.

Please don't compensate the SNR for our PAM8 proposal for the
inadequacies of the supposedly "optimized" encoding schemes used in the
PAM12 proposal.

Please don't even think about it.

Sailesh Rao.

>From: Vivek Telang <vivek@VITESSE.COM>
>Reply-To: "IEEE P802.3an" <>
>Subject: Re: [10GBT] Updated Tables
>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:58:44 -0500
>In that case, to simplify comparisons, I propose that we decouple the
>line code variable from the analysis, and assume the same coding gain
>for both line codes.
>I believe the coding gain assumed in Scott's presentation was 10.0 dB
>(33.8-23.8), so shall we say that the PAM-8 SNR required for BER=1e-12
>is 30.3-10 = 20.3 dB?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: []On
>Behalf Of sailesh rao
>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:11 PM
>Subject: Re: [10GBT] Updated Tables
>Thanks for the opportunity.
>At the meeting, Jose pointed out that the extension of the SNR/BER
>curve I made on the (2048,1723) code from 6E-11 BER down to 1E-12 BER
>(slide 10 of
>rao_1_0704.pdf) was not based on real simulations. I had assumed that
>1E-12 BER assertions on slide 4 of seki_1_0304.pdf was based on real
>simulations, but it was apparently just a "hand extrapolation" of my
>original SNR/BER curve.  Unfortunately, this point was not clarified to

>me during my e-mail correspondence with Dr. Seki.
>At the moment, I stand by the 6E-11 BER point in the BER vs. SNR curve
>of the (2048,1723) LDPC code since I personally supervised the
>generation of this simulation point. In the worst-case, assuming
>Murphy's law applies, we can expect the BER/SNR curve for the
>(2048,1723) LDPC code to undertake a slope change in parallel with the
>uncoded Gaussian curve and the intercept for the 1E-12 BER will occur
>slightly higher than 19.9dB (my extrapolation shows 20.4dB, not
>However, this is a moot point. If Amir Mezer's LDPC simulations show
>that the (2048,1723) LDPC code has a slope change at 6e-11 BER, I will
>instantly recommend adding a row to the Djurdjevic construction for the

>(2048,1723) code and pushing the slope change down below the 1E-12 BER
>point. Or, for that matter, if Amir Mezer's simulations show that the
>(992,829) LDPC code has no slope change until 1E-12 BER, I will
>recommend we switch to that code. I am aware that Amir Mezer has close
>to infinite computing resources since he is employed at Intel (Amir, I
>hope things haven't changed!!!), and therefore, we can rely on him to
>validate the specific LDPC code the task force is using down to 1E-12
BER and beyond.
>The bottom line is that the PAM8 modulation scheme is not wedded to a
>specific Djurdjevic LDPC code and we should really dis-associate the
>specific LDPC code choice from the choice of PAM levels. For instance,
>PAM8 proposal will work just fine with the (1024,833) code the PAM12
>proponents are using, though I would personally hesitate to add such a
>SONET-on-Steroids like framing complexity in an Ethernet standard.
>Heck, we had interoperablilty problems with the scrambler definition on

>1000BASE-T - do we really want to deal with interoperability issues
>with such a complex framing scheme in 10GBASE-T?
>Sailesh Rao.
> >From: Vivek Telang <vivek@VITESSE.COM>
> >Reply-To: "IEEE P802.3an" <>
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: [10GBT] Updated Tables
> >Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:17:39 -0500
> >
> >Hi Sailesh,
> >
> >At the meeting last week, there was a question raised (by Jose) about

> >the
> >PAM-8 SNR requirement of 19.9 dB for BER=1e-12 (column 3 of your
> >think he said that it was actually ~1dB worse than that (~20.9dB),
> >but
> >not positive. There was a discussion, but I don't think the matter
> >got resolved, so can you clarify?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Vivek
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: []On
> >Behalf Of sailesh rao
> >Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:02 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: [10GBT] Updated Tables
> >
> >
> >10GBT'ers:
> >
> >In the attached, I've updated the 3 tables in our July presentation
> >based on the following:
> >
> >1. Change PAM12 symbol rate to 825Ms/s from 820Ms/s.
> >2. Delete PAM10 entry.
> >3. As Luc pointed out, add a 1.2dB emissions penalty for PAM12 due to

> >its higher transmit PSD.
> >4. As Jose pointed out, subtract 0.4dB from the PAM12 emissions
> >penalty
> >to the THP peak voltage adjustment.
> >
> >Next, I integrated the WGN for 1E-12 BER over the Nyquist frequency
> >range to get a "wideband noise tolerance" measure for the two
> >proposals. Finally,
> >summed the noise immunity penalty and the emissions penalty for the
> >PAM12 proposal to form a "Total EMI Penalty" metric over the PAM8
> >
> >In Models 1 and 3, the penalty works out to be 2.6dB and 2.2dB
> >for PAM12 over PAM8. However, in Model 2, which represents the
> >existing cabling infrastructure, the penalty for PAM12 over PAM8
> >works out to a whopping 4.0dB!!
> >
> >Regards,
> >Sailesh Rao.
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page -
> >FREE download!
> >
>Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide!

Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from
McAfee(r) Security.