| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Lennart: As I see it, in hindsight, 4-Pair PoE should have been a new “chapter” (ie clause). Mutual ID conceptually serves as the ‘auto-negotiation’ for PoE. My one issue with this proposal would be rather than divide by Type-1/2 vs Type-3/4, why not divide by 2-Pair vs 4-Pair PoE? In the world of 2-Pair PoE there is no concept of a connection check, 4-Pair ID, pair-to-pair unbalance, 4-pair inrush considerations, etc., etc. Most of the rules pertinent to a 2-Pair Type-3 PSE/PD exist today as 802.3at. The only exceptions (off the top of my head) are: 1) LCF Classification 2) DC MPS 3) Autoclass Optioning the above 3 features into 802.3at seems like it would be a relatively straight forward task. (Associating these features with Type-3/4 versus just as new options to Type-1/2 would need to be considered also….that way, Type-3/4 are once again aligned with 4-Pair PoE exclusively.) Does anyone else see it this way? Regards, Pete J Sifos From: Yseboodt, Lennart [mailto:lennart.yseboodt@xxxxxxxxxxx] Hi all, This week there will be a proposal to describe Type 3 and Type 4 in a new separate Clause in 802.3. Presentation: http://www.ieee802.org/3/bt/public/nov15/yseboodt_1_1115_newclause_v120.pdf And one from Yair: http://www.ieee802.org/3/bt/public/nov15/darshan_06_1115.pdf To aid us in deciding to go for this or not, I’ve made a “preview” of what the PD section would look like. This is in our private section: http://www.ieee802.org/3/bt/private/8023-133_ssubection3.pdf Kind regards, Lennart |