RE: Actions and Issues from June Meeting
- To: gwinn@xxxxxxxxxx, Jonathan Thatcher <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Actions and Issues from June Meeting
- From: "Chang, Edward S" <Edward.Chang@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:05:11 -0400
- Cc: "HSSG_reflector (E-mail)" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Good point. I will derive an equation including packet length as one of the
parameters which affects the BER.
From: gwinn@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gwinn@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 5:30 PM
To: Jonathan Thatcher
Cc: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Actions and Issues from June Meeting
At 12:12 PM 99/6/17, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>During the last meeting, I took an action item to list a number of issues
>that I had compiled from reflector discussions and request thoughtful
>presentations. For some, we have individuals signed up. Please contact me
>you would like time on the July agenda to present on any of these issues.
>This is, in effect, a call for presentations. If multiple people contact me
>on a particular topic. I will make sure that they have an opportunity to
>work together on a common presentation (this will, of course, be at their
>Issues 3 - Bit Error Rate
>The assumption will be that this is 10-12. If someone wishes to challenge
>this they should bring a presentation to the next meeting providing
>reasoning why this needs to change.
It strikes me that the issue of larger maximum packet sizes will likely
come up, just as it did for GbE. If 10GbE goes to 9 KB packets, the design
center BER would need to go to 10^-13 to maintain the same theoretical
packet loss rate. I'm not sure how much effect this would have in
practice, as most gigabit links achieve much better than 10^-12, if they
work at all. Anyway, these items are ripe for debate and decision.