Re: [802.3_100GCU] Discussion of Objectives
A few thoughts on some of these:
>
> Throwing in a couple more questions for discussion.
> - Do we want to keep the virtual lane concept? 10GBASE-R
> encoding?
I don’t see why we would not keep the clause 82 PCS (PCS lanes, lane markers and 64B/66B encoding), unless there was a compelling reason to re-invent the PCS, so far I have not seen any reasons. This will make connecting a standard 100GE MAC to a future 100GBASE-KR4 PHY easier I would think.
> - Should we keep the "BER < 1e-12" objective from past
> projects?
> o Bengt's presentation suggests that this should scale up with speed
> (to maintain error rate over time).
> o On the other hand, legacy channels and new TX/RX implementation
> might make even 1e-12 challenging without FEC.
> o Maybe we should define two separate targets – one for FEC-protected
> and one for "raw"?
> o Maybe the target should be in terms of MTTFPA?
I think the BER does need to scale over time or we are kidding ourselves.
Optional FEC could be part of the solution.
> - Considering FEC - is latency part of the objectives? Do we
> want to define a limit? Can FEC can be mandatory if it meets a lower
> latency requirement?
Latency is a key parameter that we need to consider, making it an objective makes it clear to all that this is a priority for this project.
Cheers, Mark