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

Re: [HSSG] BER Objective



Steve,

Would you want to make the FEC part of the PHY or include it in the MAC layer?

Regards,
Menachem
Menachem Abraham
Columbus Advisors
 


-----Original Message-----
From: "Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)" <sjtrowbridge@LUCENT.COM>
Date:         Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:23:48 
To:STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG] BER Objective

Mike,
I fully agree. I think we would be reckless to be building an interface
at this kind of bitrate that wasn't FEC capable. Certainly all of the
transport interfaces from 2.5Gb/s and higher are capable of FEC.

You can always switch it off if:
(a) You are running a very short link that is so far within the link
budget that you know the BER performance will be much better than
required by the spec; or
(b) You have an application where latency is more important than BER
performance.

As mentioned before, for anything going over a WAN or (other) transport
network, the propagation delay is much larger than the FEC computation
delay.
Regards,
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Bennett [mailto:mjbennett@LBL.GOV] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:57 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG] BER Objective

Roger,

I don't think PHY latency would be an issue for transport providers,
since the propagation delay would dominate. Latency requirements will
differ depending on the application.

Mike

Roger Merel wrote:
>
> Unfortunately FEC is not an option as these applications are even more

> sensitive to being low latency. FEC adds latency.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* Mike Dudek [mailto:mike.dudek@PICOLIGHT.COM]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:36 PM
> *To:* STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
> *Subject:* Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
> Am I being naive here, or could the applications that require the 
> super low error rates include some FEC, without burdening all the 
> physical layer applications with a requirement for extremely low error

> rate. Although present applications may be expected to be the high end

> users that require the extremely low error rates, if we have broad 
> market potential that segment of the market is going to drop in 
> percentage in the future. Other standards have included FEC why not 
> this one? (10GEPON is looking at pretty strong FEC).
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Dudek
> Director Transceiver Engineering
> Picolight Inc
> 1480 Arthur Avenue
> Louisville
> CO 80027
> Tel 303 530 3189 x7533.
> mike.dudek@picolight.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve) [mailto:sjtrowbridge@LUCENT.COM]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:50 PM
> *To:* STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
> *Subject:* Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
> Jungu,
>
> Looking further into the thread, I think there are at least two 
> separate questions:
>
> - What BER level is feasible to test/verify? Can it be tested 
> directly, or only through extrapolation?
>
> - What BER is needed for the service?
>
> I had reacted initially to the statement about errors being "few and 
> far between" and the discussion about lengthy tests being required, 
> almost in the same breath as proposing BER of 10^-10, which made no
sense.
>
> Other discussion seems to revolve around what this BER is good enough 
> for the service. From the discussion, I agree that if your 100 Gbit/s 
> is an aggregate of a huge number of much smaller flows, we can 
> consider BER in terms of the percentage of corrupted packets and 
> required retransmissions and not have to strive for lower BER as we go

> to higher bitrates. But if the interface is used because the customer 
> needs a small number (perhaps only one, in a supercomputer
> environment) of very large flows and stopping to retransmit might idle

> some very large processors, this is a different situation entirely.
>
> Probably good to try to separate the two questions above for the 
> discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>     *From:* OJHA,JUGNU [mailto:jugnu.ojha@avagotech.com]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:14 PM
>     *To:* Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve);
STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>     *Subject:* RE: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>     Steven,
>
>     I was trying to understand whether 1 error per second is a lot
>     worse from a performance point of view than 1 error every ten
>     seconds. Your point about the extra test time is valid for the
>     foreseeable future, where these interfaces are only used for
>     high-end applications.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Jugnu
>
>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>     *From:* Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)
>     [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:11 PM
>     *To:* OJHA,JUGNU; STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>     *Subject:* RE: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>     Jungu,
>
>     I'm confused. I see a proposal to use a BER requirement of 10^-10
>     and these words about errors being "few and far between", yet 100
>     Gbit/s is 10^11 bits/s. An average of 10 errors per second doesn't
>     meet my idea of "few and far between", and I doubt this would be
>     acceptable to most users who will pay the kind of money this kind
>     of interface is likely to cost.
>
>     I am curious whether a really high end interface like this makes a
>     lengthier test more feasible (i.e., you couldn't afford to do a 10
>     minute test on an interface you expected to sell for $10. But for
>     an infrastructure interface like this one, perhaps some extra
>     testing time wouldn't be a significant portion of the interface 
> cost)
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Steve
>
>         
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>         *From:* OJHA,JUGNU [mailto:jugnu.ojha@AVAGOTECH.COM]
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:48 AM
>         *To:* STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>         *Subject:* Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>         Roger,
>
>         I understand that test time is the issue. The point I'm
>         getting at (and which I've always wondered about) is, if the
>         errors are so few and far between that it takes so long to
>         find them, how much impact can they really be having on the
>         system/network performance? I.e., are we being too demanding
>         with the BER requirements.
>
>         Jugnu
>
>         
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>         *From:* Roger Merel [mailto:roger@LUXTERA.COM]
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:44 AM
>         *To:* STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>         *Subject:* Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>         It's not hard to measure, just time consuming. If one wants to
>         keep optics affordable, one need manufacturing test to be
>         <minutes, not >10 minutes.
>
>         Although my position is that 1E-15 BER is not required; but
>         only 1E-13 at most.
>
>         
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>         *From:* OJHA,JUGNU [mailto:jugnu.ojha@AVAGOTECH.COM]
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:37 AM
>         *To:* STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>         *Subject:* Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>         All of this raises the following question: If this is so hard
>         to measure, how much impact can it really have in the real
>         world? Why not back the BER requirement off to 10e-10?
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Jugnu
>
>         
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>         *From:* Petar Pepeljugoski [mailto:petarp@US.IBM.COM]
>         *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2006 8:03 PM
>         *To:* STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
>         *Subject:* Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>
>         I agree with Howard. It is impractical and expensive to test
>         for very low BERs - the specs should be such that the power
>         budget is capable of achieving BER =1e-15, yet the testing can
>         be some kind of accelerated BER at lower value that is derived
>         from the curve interpolation.
>
>         However, the as with any extrapolation of testing results one
>         has to be careful, so in this case it will be manufacturers'
>         responsibility to guarantee the BER=1e-15.
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Petar Pepeljugoski
>         IBM Research
>         P.O.Box 218 (mail)
>         1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134 (shipping)
>         Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
>
>         e-mail: petarp@us.ibm.com
>         phone: (914)-945-3761
>         fax: (914)-945-4134
>
>         *Howard Frazier <hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM>*
>
>         08/28/2006 05:39 PM
>
>         Please respond to
>         Howard Frazier <hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM>
>
>         	
>
>         To
>
>         	
>
>         STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
>         cc
>
>         	
>
>         Subject
>
>         	
>
>         Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>         	
>
>
>
>
>
>         For the 100 Mbps EFM fiber optic links (100BASE-LX10 and
>         100BASE-BX10)
>         we specified a BER requirement of 1E-12, consistent with the
>         BER requirement
>         for gigabit links. We recognized that this would be
>         impractical to test in a
>         production environment, so we defined a means to extrapolate a
>         BER of 1E-12
>         by testing to a BER of 1E-10 with an additional 1 dB of
>         attenuation. See
>         58.3.2 and 58.4.2.
>
>         Howard Frazier
>         Broadcom Corporation
>
>         
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>         *From:* Roger Merel [mailto:roger@LUXTERA.COM] *
>         Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2006 1:54 PM*
>         To:* STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org*
>         Subject:* Re: [HSSG] BER Objective
>
>         David,
>
>         Prior to 10G, the BER standard (for optical communications)
>         was set at 1E-10 (155M-2.5G). At 10G, the BER standard was
>         revised to 1E-12. For unamplified links, the difference
>         between 1E-12 and 1E-15 is only a difference of 1dB in power
>         delivered to the PD. However, the larger issue is one of
>         margin and testability (as the duration required to reliably
>         verify 1E-15 for 10G is impractical as a factory test on every
>         unit) especially since we'd want to spec worst case product
>         distribution at worst case path loss (cable+connector loss)
>         and at EOL with margin. Thus in reality, all products ship at
>         BOL from the factory with a BER of 1E-15 and in fact nearly
>         all will continue to deliver 1E-15 for their entire life under
>         their actual operating conditions and with their actual cable
>         losses.
>
>         Thus, if by "design target", you mean a worst case-worst case
>         with margin to be assured at EOL on every factory unit, then
>         this is overkill. I might be willing to entertain a 1E-13 BER
>         as this would imply that same number of errors per second (on
>         an absolute basis; irrespective of the number of bits being
>         passed; this takes the same time in the factory as verifying
>         1E-12 at 10G although this is in fact a real cost burden which
>         adversely product economics); however, this would not
>         substantially change the reality of the link budget. It would
>         make for a sensible policy for the continued future of bit
>         error rate specs (should their be future "Still-Higher-Speed"
>         SG's).
>
>         -Roger
>
>
>         
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
>         *From:* Martin, David (CAR:Q840) *
>         Sent:* Friday, August 25, 2006 12:22 PM*
>         To:* STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org*
>         Subject:* BER Objective
>
>         During the discussion on Reach Objectives there didn't appear
>         to be any mention of corresponding BER.
>
>         Recall the comments from the floor during the July meeting
>         CFI, regarding how 10GigE has been used more as infrastructure
>         rather than as typical end user NICs. And that the application
>         expectation for 100GigE would be similar.
>
>         Based on that view, I'd suggest a BER design target of (at
>         least) 1E-15. That has been the defacto expectation from most
>         carriers since the introduction of OC-192 systems.
>
>         The need for strong FEC (e.g., G.709 RS), lighter FEC (e.g.,
>         BCH-3), or none at all would then depend on various factors,
>         like the optical technology chosen for each of the target link
>         lengths.
>
>         ...Dave
>
>         David W. Martin
>         Nortel Networks_
>_dwmartin@nortel.com <mailto:dwmartin@nortel.com>
>         +1 613 765 2901 (esn 395)
>         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>


--
Michael J. Bennett
Sr. Network Engineer
LBLnet Services Group
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Tel. 510.486.7913