[10GBT] Moving forward
In the July meeting, I volunteered to immediately start a technical
discussion on the reflector pointing out the issues with PAM12 so that we
could make an informed decision on the PAM8 vs. PAM12 question in September.
Over the past several weeks, I have presented six technical issues:
1. Increased EMI penalty of 2.6dB to 4.5dB at all line lengths.
2. Increased analog front-end distortion requirement of up to 4dB.
3. Inefficient constellation.
4. Complex framing.
5. Fixed patterns.
6. Risky LDPC code.
These issues have forced the PAM12 proponents to try and significantly
change their proposal, especially in the search for an efficient
To ensure that we move forward and not delay the standard, I would like to
make the following requests:
1. I request anyone who has any issue with PAM8 to present it in the
reflector now so that I can make a detailed technical analysis and present
it to you at the interim. So far, I hear opinions claiming than the 15%
higher clock rate can be a problem, but I have not heard any specifics.
2. I request anyone that has a new constellation or other solution to tackle
any of the six issues that I have presented for PAM12, to please present
their detailed solutions on the reflector immediately so that everybody has
an opportunity to analyze the solutions before the meeting.
3. I request everyone to not sign on as a supporter of a given proposal
until they see the technical content of all the presentations for Ottawa.
I hope that these suggestions will help us to make an informed technical
decision in Ottawa to create a strong and robust 10GBASE-T standard that the
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx