Re: 1000BASE-T PCS question
- To: "Chang, Edward S" <Edward.Chang@unisys.com>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: 1000BASE-T PCS question
- From: Jaime Kardontchik <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:11:21 -0700
- Organization: microlinear corporation
- References: <8E37550684B3D211A20B0090271EC59D01818610@tr-exchange-1.tr.unisys.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
I think that other people might be better qualified than I to handle this
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
Ethernet standards deliver a BER of 10^(-10).
Jaime E. Kardontchik
San Jose, CA 95131
"Chang, Edward S" wrote:
> We have been discussing scramble code versus block code, 8B/10B in
> particular, for a while on the reflector. Many people have the same feeling
> that scrambled code has run length much longer than desirable to cause
> base-line wander, and PLL clock drift; as a result, it can not meet the BER
> of 10^-12
> The SONET using scramble code has BER of 10^-10, which is not recommended
> for the datacom file transfer. I believe the BER of 1000BASE-T is 10^-10,
> again, which is not recommended for file transfer.
> You can prove the BER is 10^-12 for the 4D symbol code to enable it to be
> used for all purposes, or stay at 10^-10 BER to be used, as 802.3ab, for
> less critical data handling.
> Please clarify.
> Ed Chang
> Unisys Corporation
> Alto, CA 94303-4305 Alt email: firstname.lastname@example.org