Re: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment
Boaz,
It could be either. If you have a BER analyzer that can take the XGMII
interface then that can be used. What we are doing is looping the
recovered data back into our transmitter and sending the data back to an
Agilent serial BER analysis system. It doesn't really matter how the
BER of the recovered data is analyzed as long as the BER analysis system
has a much lower error rate than the receiver you are testing.
Howard
Boaz Shahar wrote:
>
> Howard,
> In the block diagram on page 11, The "recovered data" and "recovered clock"
> that goes from the DUT to the BERT are the digital I/F (i.e. ~80 signals
> with 156Mhz) or a XAUI bus with reference clock?
> Thx.,
> Boaz
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Howard A. Baumer [mailto:hbaumer@broadcom.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:22 PM
> > To: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
> > Subject: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment
> >
> >
> >
> > To all concerned,
> > I put in a TR Comment against D3.1 stating the desire to put a
> > maximum
> > limit on the TX Rj. This comment was rejected and left unresolved.
> > There was fairly wide agreement that having a max limit on TX
> > Rj should
> > be done but that we should first get a broader input on what
> > this limit
> > should be. I took on the action item to start a reflector
> > discussion to
> > determine this limit.
> > The current draft sets a limit for Tj and a limit for Dj and then
> > defines Rj aa Rj = Tj(max) - Dj(actual). The TR comment
> > proposes that a
> > limit be set for Tj, Rj and Dj and that Rj(actual) + Dj(actual) <
> > Tj(max). There is a presentation that we are developing that
> > attempts to figure out a limit for Rj. It can be found at
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/ae/public/documents/XAUIjittercomments.pdf.
> > Please review and comment.
> > This presentation also brings out a problem with the
> > current Jitter
> > Tolerance test technique.
> >
> > Howard Baumer
> >