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

[802.3_RTPGE] AW: [802.3_RTPGE] AW: [802.3_RTPGE] PoE Ad-hoc questions - final



Steve,

 

agree that we should keep focused. But we definitely need to investigate the implications that Po(A)E has with RTPGE. We have use cases for it.

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Thomas Hogenmüller

Robert Bosch GmbH
Automotive Electronics (AE-BE/EKE)
Postfach 16 61
71226 Leonberg
GERMANY

www.bosch.com

Tel. +49 711 811 37681
Mobil +49 172 1745993


Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Hermann Scholl; Geschäftsführung: Franz Fehrenbach, Siegfried Dais;
Stefan Asenkerschbaumer, Bernd Bohr, Rudolf Colm, Volkmar Denner, Christoph Kübel, Uwe Raschke,
Wolf-Henning Scheider, Werner Struth, Peter Tyroller

Von: Steven B. Carlson [mailto:scarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2012 18:21
An: Hogenmueller Thomas (AE-BE/EKE); STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [802.3_RTPGE] AW: [802.3_RTPGE] PoE Ad-hoc questions - final

 

All,

 

I’d like to remind the SG that our charter is to develop a reduced twisted pair Gigabit Ethernet PHY, not a new powering standard. If a new standard for powering is needed, it will need a CFI in 802.3 (if 802.3 is the right place for it) or in some other standards body.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

Steven B. Carlson

Chair, Reduced Twisted Pair Gigabit Ethernet PHY Study Group

http://www.ieee802.org/3/RTPGE/index.html
Executive Secretary, IEEE 802.3 Working Group

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/index.html
President
High Speed Design, Inc.

Portland, OR
scarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 

From: Hogenmueller Thomas (AE-BE/EKE) [mailto:Thomas.Hogenmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:50 AM
To: STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_RTPGE] AW: [802.3_RTPGE] PoE Ad-hoc questions - final

 

Hello together,

 

what the automotive industry wants is the possibility of transferring Power and Communication on the same wire. It doesn’t need to be compliant to IEEE802.3at. But I see a strong need for a standardized solution! We want plug and play.

 

From a Tier1 perspective, we don’t want to implement for the same application for OEM1 RTPGE with the specific PoAE solution from Chip-Vendor A and for OEM2 RTPGE with the specific PoAE solution from Chip-Vendor B. This would be very expensive in many ways ( we can discuss this in San Diego)

 

From an OEM perspective I could imagine that they also look for Plug and Play, they may want to buy ECU A from Supplier 1 and ECU B from Supplier 2, and they should work together seamlessly.

 

I do understand the question of parameters for the PoAE components, therefore the concept of several Power Level can solve the problem.

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Thomas Hogenmüller

Robert Bosch GmbH
Automotive Electronics (AE-BE/EKE)
Postfach 16 61
71226 Leonberg
GERMANY

www.bosch.com

Tel. +49 711 811 37681
Mobil +49 172 1745993


Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Hermann Scholl; Geschäftsführung: Franz Fehrenbach, Siegfried Dais;
Stefan Asenkerschbaumer, Bernd Bohr, Rudolf Colm, Volkmar Denner, Christoph Kübel, Uwe Raschke,
Wolf-Henning Scheider, Werner Struth, Peter Tyroller

Von: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@xxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2012 20:01
An: STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [802.3_RTPGE] PoE Ad-hoc questions - final

 

Stephane

First, thanks for the reply.  I believe we do need to have a group dialog on this topic.

My question was more about:
If we do a separate PoE standard for automotive, should it specify the same parameters as we have in the current PoE specs or should it be less oriented to plug-and-play and more oriented towards "engineered applications"?

Cameras are a reasonable example where:
    - the volume occupied by the device needs to be as small as possible
    - the manufacturing volumes (numbers) are high
    - the devices will be factory installed rather than user installed
    - there is likely to be specific configurations of hardware for each specific application
If we have a PoE standard like the current one, a full implementation of the standard may well impose extra costs on the above situation.

My questions was:    Do we need a somewhat different style of PoE standard to meet the above needs?
What is true is that in the above situation manufacturers and their suppliers will negotiate arrangements where they need only partial compliance with the existing standard and other areas where specifically don't want to pay the added cost of full compliance.  I'm just trying to get the discussion of that situation out on the table.  An example of this might be a matched PSE and PD that are only used together and therefore would not need any classification interaction.

Best regards,

    Geoff

Geoffrey O. Thompson
GraCaSI S.A.
Mountain View, CA 94043
<thompson@xxxxxxxx>

On 126//12 11:04 PM, KORZIN Stephane wrote:

Geoff,

 

as a car manufacturer, Renault wants:

- smallest cost (and standard cameras should be cheaper than specific ones)

but also :

- small volume for cameras (room is scarce where we want to locate them)

- minimum harness for cameras (room is scarce also for harness in door connector, in outside mirror connector, ..., and harness is cost also)

 

Should I understand from your comment that maybe ISO 17215 specification would be a good place for "PoE cameras"?

Could we have the same PoE spec for 100 Mbps and 1Gbps Automotive Ethernet?

 

As yet, I see cameras as a good candidate for PoE in cars, but maybe others exist ...

 

    Stephane.

 


De : Hugh Barrass (hbarrass) [mailto:hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx]
Envoyé : mercredi 13 juin 2012 02:54
À : STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [802.3_RTPGE] PoE Ad-hoc questions - final

Geoff,

 

That’s an interesting thought. If that line of thinking is used, then the requirement would be that the PHY specification is “compatible with PoAE” – in other words, that the PHY is able to be implemented in such a manner that does not interfere with the delivery of power. For example, if the PHY uses a band-limited definition and leaves the DC-xxxKHz band free, then a splitter can be used to insert power in the same manner as POTS or DSL.

 

Of course, there’s a whole spectrum between “use PoE” and “let the implementer design it.” We could also consider different levels of specification.

 

Hugh.

 

 

From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 5:21 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_RTPGE] PoE Ad-hoc questions - final

 

Dave-

I think there is a larger question to be answered here.
That would be:

Does the automotive industry actually want "standardized PoE" of the same style that the current PoE standard provides?

That is, does the auto industry really want the sort of multi-vendor plug-and-play facility that we provide along with its lack of optimization for cost?

The alternative would be for them to do PoAE (Power over Automotive Ethernet) on a more finely tuned basis.  That is, each instance (with specific exceptions*) would be "engineered" to closely match supply size, conductor size, fault detection and PD characteristics to each specific application within the vehicle.

In such a context a standard might not be necessary or the PoAE standard might be much more wide open than the current standard with the expectation that each connection and the component connection options on each end would be designed by engineering experts.  Sort of (conceptually) more like Ethernet over fiber than Ethernet over twisted-pair.

* The specific exceptions being user accessible accessory interfaces which would use the existing standard.

Best regards,
    Geoff

Geoffrey O. Thompson
GraCaSI S.A.
Mountain View, CA 94043
<thompson@xxxxxxxx>

On 126//12 3:15 PM, Dave Dwelley wrote:

All -

 

Here is the final question list from the PoE Ad-hoc in Minneapolis. End users (automotive/industrial/other): please look at this list and be prepared to discuss these points in San Diego.

 

Thanks to those who contributed questions, and I look forward to seeing you at the Plenary -

 

Dave

-- Disclaimer ------------------------------------
Ce message ainsi que les eventuelles pieces jointes constituent une correspondance privee et confidentielle a l'attention exclusive du destinataire designe ci-dessus. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire du present message ou une personne susceptible de pouvoir le lui delivrer, il vous est signifie que toute divulgation, distribution ou copie de cette transmission est strictement interdite. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, nous vous remercions d'en informer l'expediteur par telephone ou de lui retourner le present message, puis d'effacer immediatement ce message de votre systeme.

*** This e-mail and any attachments is a confidential correspondence intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient or the agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by phone or by replying this message, and then delete this message from your system.