Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference




Sometimes strong hints don't work.

I have taken this off line.

jonathan

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stuart Brorson [mailto:sdb@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 12:56 PM
>To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
>
>
>
>I did not intend to "beat anybody silly".  Rather, I wanted to 
>point out
>that designing 10 Gig circuits with very low jitter is *hard*, and the
>difficulty is compounded by using lower speed reference 
>clocks.  My friend
>from (unnamed Danish company) unwittingly proved my point by 
>announcing that
>their 10 Gig SONET mux chip used a 155 MHz reference.  
>Unfortunately for
>him, that chip is known in the industry for having jitter problems.
>
>More importantly, my real point was that the chip vendors (and 
>the standards
>body by extension) should not restrict the designer to using a 
>lower speed
>(i.e. 155 MHz) clock.  IMHO, designers want to choose either 
>155 or 622, and
>that's the choice the 10 Gig SERDES chip designers correctly give them.
>
>In any event, I discovered after posting my initial message that the
>question of one vs. two clocks involved not the question of 
>155 vs. 622, but
>rather how to synthesize both 9.95328 GHz  and 10.3125 GHz 
>(WAN vs. LAN)
>with only one reference clock.  Read before you post, I always say!
>
>Just to put my two cents into this latter discussion:  Since 
>LAN line cards
>and WAN line cards often use different optics -- and are 
>therefore different
>designs -- I see no reason that one needs to generate 9.95328 GHz and
>10.3125 GHz off the same crystal.  Different boards can have 
>different BOMs
>and call out for different oscillators.
>
>Stuart Brorson
>Axiowave Networks
>100 Nickerson Road
>Marlborough, MA 01752
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Thatcher [mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 3:30 PM
>To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Cc: Geoffrey O. Thompson (E-mail); David Law (E-mail); Robert M. Grow
>(E-mail); Steven Haddock (E-mail); 'henning.lysdal@xxxxxxxxx'; 'Stuart
>Brorson'; Fred Weniger (E-mail); Joel Goergen (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
>Importance: High
>
>
>Warning!
>
>Excuse me, but me thinks that you (plural) have broken the 
>"respectful and
>dignified" rule here. 
>
>Apologizing in advance, frankly, doesn't carry much weight. Try this
>metaphor: "Sorry sir. But, I am going to beat you silly and take your
>wallet." Isn't a courteous mugger kind of an oxymoron? Perhaps 
>this is the
>foundation of an insanity plea? I mean, you can't exactly 
>plead ignorance,
>can you?
>
>Oh, and jumping on the guy while he is down sounds to me more like a
>"Central Park" incident than a technical discussion.
>
>Finally, running down the street screaming with your wallet in 
>the air and
>cash falling out isn't especially wise either.
>
>It would best if everyone avoid the use of company names in all IEEE
>P802.3ae communications. Period.
>
>jonathan
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Joel Goergen [mailto:joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 2:15 PM
>>To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>As a guy who work with Stuart and others on these issues ...I 
>>double the "Right
>>On, Brother!"
>>-joel
>>-------------
>>Fred Weniger wrote:
>>
>>> Stuart,
>>>
>>> As a SerDes vendor, I can only say "Right On, Brother!"
>>>
>>>   At 08:57 AM 6/20/00 -0400, Stuart Brorson wrote:
>>>
>>> >Please allow me to make a quick comment about 155 vs. 622 
>>MHz clocks here.
>>> >I was involved in OC-192 IO card design at my former 
>>employer, Nexabit
>>> >Networks (now Lucent Technologies), and have had some 
>>experience in this
>>> >department.
>>> >
>>> >It is not my desire to disparage the fine products of Giga 
>>here, so please
>>> >accept my apologies in advance.  However, the 10 Gig SERDES 
>>products from
>>> >Giga (i.e. GD16555 and GD16554) had jitter gen problems, 
>even on the
>>> >company-supplied test board.  Amongst other problems, 
>>Giga's test board
>>> >incorporated a 155 MHz clock.  Designing a low jitter 
>>PLL/SERDES chain is
>>> >not very easy.
>>> >
>>> >It is noteworthy that the OIF has speced a 622 MHz 
>>reference clock freq for
>>> >the 10 Gig framer/SERDES.  That means that clueful PLL 
>>vendors have every
>>> >reason to design low-jitter 622 MHz clock modules which can 
>>be used -- or
>>> >modified for use -- with 10GigE also.
>>> >
>>> >In any event, most vendors with whom I am aware -- 
>>including Giga -- allow
>>> >the user to select either a 155 or a 622 MHz reference 
>>clock.  This allows
>>> >the board designer freedom to choose the design problem he 
>>wants to tackle:
>>> >either a lower speed 155 MHz PLL with stringent jitter 
>>specs (and a very low
>>> >jitter SERDES), or a higher speed 622 MHz PLL with all the 
>>intricacies of RF
>>> >design, but perhaps with an easier jitter (i.e. board 
>>noise) problem.
>>> >
>>> >Why not allow two clock frequencies and leave the board 
>>designer the freedom
>>> >of choice?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Stuart Brorson
>>> >Axiowave Networks
>>> >Marlborough, MA 01752
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Lysdal, Henning [mailto:henning.lysdal@xxxxxxxxx]
>>> >Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 5:17 AM
>>> >To: 'Jscquake@xxxxxxx'; rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
>>stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>>> >Subject: RE: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Justin,
>>> >
>>> >In answer to your question:
>>> >
>>> >My company (formerly Giga) has been shipping OC-192 SerDes 
>>since 1997 and
>>> >the majority of our customers use 155.52 MHz reference clock.
>>> >
>>> >Regards,
>>> >
>>> >Henning
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Jscquake@xxxxxxx [mailto:Jscquake@xxxxxxx]
>>> >Sent: 20. juni 2000 00:18
>>> >To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>>> >Subject: ONLY one ref multiplier?: PMA clock reference
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Hello Rich,
>>> >
>>> >Your proposal sounds good,i.e. to have only a single clock multiple
>>> >(1/4 division) for the reference clock, but I am not sure 
>>if this is wise.
>>> >Using
>>> >a lower rate frequency clock autmatically implies worse 
>>jitter performance
>>> >for
>>> >the PLL's. This is not as much of an issue for the WDM case 
>>as it is for
>>> >serial
>>> >but every psec (or even sub-ps) counts for the serial 
>>versions. So I would
>>> >opt
>>> >to be NOT too restrictive in saying only 155-156Mhz xtal 
>>osc are allowed.
>>> >Note that the present community of OC192 people use the 
>>higher clock rate
>>> >for the reference. Are there any that uses the 155MHz as a 
>>reference for
>>> >OC192? Having said all this ... are there readily available
>>> >644.53125MHz xtal osc.?
>>> >
>>> >Justin
>>> >
>>> >In a message dated 6/16/00 1:03:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>> >rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>> >
>>> > > Henning,
>>> > >
>>> > >  Sorry about the confusion. I did mention in my note 
>>that there would have
>>> >
>>> >to
>>> > > be
>>> > >  two optional clock references specified in the XBI, one 
>>for the LAN PHY
>>> >and
>>> > > the
>>> > >  other for the WAN PHY.
>>> > >
>>> > >  What I should have said is that only one clock MULTIPLE 
>>be specified. For
>>> > >  example, 161.1328125 MHz is 1/4 of 644.53125 MHz and 
>>155.52 MHz is 1/4 of
>>> >
>>> > > 622.08
>>> > >  MHz. One fourth is a good multiple to use. This means 
>that other
>>> >multiples
>>> > >  should not be required anywhere in the standard, even 
>>optionally (i.e.
>>> >1/8,
>>> > > 1/2,
>>> > >  1/16, 1/1, etc.)
>>> > >
>>> > >  Best Regards,
>>> > >  Rich
>>> > >
>>> > >  --
>>> > >
>>> > >  "Lysdal, Henning" wrote:
>>> > >  >
>>> > >  > Rich,
>>> > >  >
>>> > >  > I don't see how you can avoid having separate 
>>reference clocks for LAN
>>> >and
>>> > >  > WAN (with realistic PLL design).
>>> > >  >
>>> > >  > In the LAN case there are several options
>>> > >  > 156.25 MHz (seems to be prefered among serial folks)
>>> > >  > 161.1328125 MHz
>>> > >  > 644.53125 MHz
>>> > >  >
>>> > >  > In the WAN case the OIF specifies 622.08 MHz. I know 
>>of a lot of people
>>> >
>>> > > who
>>> > >  > also like 155.52 MHz
>>> > >  >
>>> > >  > Now the problem is: how do you synthesize 9.95328 GHz 
>>and 10.3125 GHz
>>> >from
>>> > >  > the same reference. If you use a 10 kHz reference, 
>>it's easy, but you
>>> >will
>>> > >  > most likely have problems with transmit jitter.
>>> > >  >
>>> > >  > So I haven't been discussing the WAN case at all, 
>>since I was under the
>>> > >  > impression that WAN PHYs will use existing SONET 
>>SerDes using 622.08
>>> >MHz
>>> > >  > refck.
>>> > >  >
>>> > >  > Regards,
>>> > >  >
>>> > >  > Henning
>>> > >  >
>>>
>>> Fred Weniger
>>> Gigabit Product Marketing Manager
>>> 805-388-7571
>>> fax: 805-384-5065
>>> weniger@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> VITESSE
>>> SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
>>
>>--
>>Joel Goergen
>>Force10 Networks
>>1440 McCarthy blvd
>>Milpitas, Ca, 95035
>>
>>Email:  joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Direct: (408) 571-3694
>>Cell:  (612) 670-5930
>>Fax:   (408) 571-3550
>>
>>
>