From owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Thu Mar 2 15:36 GMT 2000 Received: from gatekeeper.pdd.3com.com (gatekeeper [161.71.169.3]) by isolan.pdd.3com.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02897; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:36:34 GMT Received: from ruebert.ieee.org ([199.172.136.3]) by gatekeeper.pdd.3com.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA2C97; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:34:49 +0000 Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22727; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:04:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Edward Chang" To: Cc: Subject: RE: PAM-5, what are your BERs ? Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:10:43 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <38BD9BF6.CD76477F@nSerial.com> Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Precedence: bulk X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@majordomo.ieee.org X-Lines: 105 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2749 Richard: I agree with you, the complex decoding requirements of the multilevel coding causes the poor BER. Therefore, the solution is obvious, let's improve the decoding technique to lower the BER. If some one can initiate addressing the weakness of the decoding circuit, and providing suggestions to improve it, it will make PAM-5 much more attractive to users. Regards, Edward S. Chang NetWorth Technologies, Inc. Plymouth Meeting, PA EChang@NetWorthtech.com Tel: (610)292-2870 Fax: (610)292-2872 -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Taborek Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 5:39 PM Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Subject: Re: PAM-5, what are your BERs ? Ed, Bingo! However, it is not FEC that is t the core of the issue. The real culprit is MultiLevel encoding which may require FEC to achieve technical and economic feasibility as a 10 GbE PHY. I am very happy to see optical experts like yourself taking a look at how different MultiLevel signaling is from traditional binary signaling, noting the advantages, and helping to resolve the issues that arise. Best Regards, Rich -- Edward Chang wrote: > > Jaime: > > text deleted... > > The inclusion of the FEC will bring new issues to the specifications. > > Of course, those issues can be resolved. > > Regards, > > Edward S. Chang > NetWorth Technologies, Inc. > EChang@NetWorthtech.com > Tel: (610)292-2870 > Fax: (610)292-2872 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jaime Kardontchik > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 12:59 PM > To: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org > Subject: Re: PAM-5, what are your BERs ? > > Edward Chang wrote: > > > Sean: > > > > Thanks for reminding us FEC. > > > > The BER defined in the standard is the actual error rate without any error > > correction. This establishes the fundamental reliability and quality > > criteria of components, systems, and technologies. > > > > The error correction techniques can be added as an option for applications > > which need better BER than what has been specified in the standard. > > However, this is outside of the standard. > > > > For cost-effectiveness, I believe users will request the specified BER in > > the standard should be sufficient without added error collection. > > > > > > Edward S. Chang ----------------------------------------------------- Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102 Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957 nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114 2500-5 Augustine Dr. rtaborek@nSerial.com <= NEW! Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com <= NEW!