RE: Ideally BER should be a customer controlled option
- To: "Chang, Edward S" <Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Rich Seifert" <seifert@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Jaime Kardontchik" <kardontchik.jaime@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Ideally BER should be a customer controlled option
- From: "Bill St. Arnaud" <bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:57:27 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <8E37550684B3D211A20B0090271EC59D0189BA5E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-To: <bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Please don't get me wrong. I think a standard should be set for BER, so
that at least to insure compatibility and interoperability. I also know
that a flexible BER may be a pipe dream. The factors that influence BER
tend to very non-linear and as such a flexible BER may be very difficult to
implement in practice. However, I would be interested to see if any
manufacturers would provide a knob for BER, or at least provide a spec sheet
outlining the various factors that may effect BER and what steps could be
taken to push the BER envelope beyond the agreed upon standard if so
Bill St Arnaud
Director Network Projects
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chang, Edward S [mailto:Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 4:42 PM
> To: bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx; Rich Seifert; Jaime Kardontchik; Chang,
> Edward S; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Ideally BER should be a customer controlled option
> It seems you picked one unpopular suggestion, so far, no one
> seems to agree
> with you yet.
> Sorry, my friend, I am also not quite ready for a flexible BER.
> In addition to the comments from others which I agree, if we let BER be
> flexible, we will have incompatibility equipment all over, and we may need
> something similar to auto-negotiation to find the BER
> (reliability) of other
> terminals before transferring data. I do not think we need that extra
> trouble. So far the BER works fine for us to set the minimum reliability
> for data transfer, and COST-EFFECTIVE.
> Ed Chang
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill St. Arnaud [mailto:bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 1999 8:30 PM
> To: Rich Seifert; Jaime Kardontchik; Chang, Edward S;
> Subject: Ideally BER should be a customer controlled option
> Realizing that there are some practical limitations, as much as possible,
> BER should be a customer controlled option.
> If I am running only IP with high number of a TCP transmissions I may
> deliberately want a high BER to act as layer 1 WRED. Also I may
> be able to
> push my repeater distance using low cost laser and a willing to suffer a
> higher BER.
> If I am running some other protocol I may require a lower BER.
> I always believe in giving the customer as much choice as
> possible. I don't
> we should play god and decide before hand what is the best BER for our
> Bill St Arnaud
> Director Network Projects
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rich
> > Seifert
> > Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 2:53 PM
> > To: Jaime Kardontchik; Chang, Edward S;
> > stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: 1000BASE-T PCS question
> > At 9:11 AM -0700 5/27/99, Jaime Kardontchik wrote:
> > >My impression is that it would have been much more simpler if
> > the group had
> > >been called "10-Gigabit-Ethernet" instead of "Higher-Speed
> > Group". At some
> > >time in the future the group will have to decide what kind of
> > standard to work
> > >on.
> > >
> > Well, it was not clear at all (and still is not clear) that a
> > single-speed of
> > 10 Gb/s is the goal of all of the study group members, or
> indeed reflects
> > the needs of the user community. It is one of the purposes of the Study
> > Group to determine what speed(s) should be supported in a standard.
> > >Ethernet standards deliver a BER of 10^(-10).
> > >
> > This is simply not true. The BER spec for 10BASE5 is 10^-9. For
> > 10BASE2 and
> > 10BASE-T, it is 10^-8. For 100BASE-X and 1000BASE-X, it is 10^-12.
> > The BER goals for any higher-speed standard should be determined
> > by the SG.
> > Further, BER is really a parameter more relevant to serial transmission
> > systems that do not use any block-coding; in such systems it is
> > straightforward to map between the BER and the Frame Loss Rate (a more
> > significant parameter in a connectionless, best-effort frame delivery
> > system). We had long discussions both in Fast Ethernet and
> > 1000BASE-T about
> > how many frame errors are generated by a single bit error, the
> > relationship
> > between symbol errors and bit errors, etc. In the end, the only
> > characteristic at the MAC service interface is the Frame Loss Rate. I
> > propose that any future standards work use this parameter to
> > the error performance of the system, rather than BER.
> > --
> > Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
> > seifert@xxxxxxxxxx 21885 Bear Creek Way
> > (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
> > (408) 395-1966 FAX
> > "... specialists in Local Area Networks and Data Communications systems"