Re: PAM-5, what are your BERs ?
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.
Edward Chang wrote:
> text deleted...
> The inclusion of the FEC will bring new issues to the specifications.
> Of course, those issues can be resolved.
> Edward S. Chang
> NetWorth Technologies, Inc.
> Tel: (610)292-2870
> Fax: (610)292-2872
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jaime Kardontchik
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 12:59 PM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx <= NEW!
Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com <= NEW!