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

Re: [EFM] RE: [EFM-P2P] FEC and BER issues, EPON and the interim


By the appearance of most of the presentations, most people seem to believe 
that Ethernet has the biggest install base in the residential services market.

It is sad that what might seem as the most popular OAM solution would only 
work well in the low bandwidth residential ISP markets.  If I had the right 
PHY, I don't need the OAM for the residential ISP market, I can do it at 
the IP layer.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum

At 02:54 AM 10/23/01 +0100, Bob Barrett wrote:

>First the FEC / BER question:
>Food for thought. How near 802.3 will the standard be if this many changes
>are made down where the electrons fly, and what likelihood that the 802.3
>voting brethren will approve such changes, even at the working group level?
>More general stuff on the interim:
>My take on the OAM track is that the Gentry proposal takes it, simply
>because it is the Ethernet 802.3 way of doing things, and that it will get
>the votes. Once something is voted 'in' it takes 75% to change it. That's
>just the way the process works.
>Best regards
>-----Original Message-----
>[]On Behalf Of Meir Bartur
>Sent: 22 October 2001 20:00
>To: raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; P2P (E-mail); P2MP (E-mail)
>Subject: [EFM-P2P] RE: [p2p],[p2mp] some FEC and BER issues
>Bringing FEC to the PMD layer implies that the CDR and the SERDES will
>all reside at that layer, which redefine the way transceivers are
>standardized today.  It is OK ONLY if the cost/benefit is such that it
>"makes or brakes" the system.  Can you provide relative cost for FEC,
>for example as a multiplier on a CDR+SERDES IC?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Raanan Ivry [mailto:raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 8:43 AM
>To: P2P (E-mail); P2MP (E-mail)
>Subject: FW: [p2p],[p2mp] some FEC and BER issues
>I attached a document which raises some
>of my thoughts about FEC, line coding and
>BER for EFM.
>It can be a base for discussion.
>Best regards,