Re: [EFM-Copper] Notes from 16-Oct call
Vladimir,
we do not just run simulation, but we are defining performance
guidelines.
All,
Why don't we add the SELF noise to the already agreed tests with UPBO ON
and noise A and F, this will definetly stress the technology. Then we
drop all the test with UPBO ON and only AWGN noise or SELF noise.
Then we should take care to aply UPBO also the the SELF noise that will
be injected.
Regards
Sabina
Vladimir.Oksman@infineon.com wrote:
> Miguel, I would agree with you only partially. Maybe AWGN is to
> stress the capability of the technology, but for SELF crosstalk UPBO
> is definitely the issue, since UPBO is to reduce FEXT. Also, please
> notice that we are not up to do any testing now, just to run
> simulations and fill up the Table. As it comes to measurements, in my
> opinion it would be enough to test just few cases of UPBO with
> different noise models.Vladimir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miguel Peeters [mailto:Miguel.Peeters@broadcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 3:36 AM
> To: Behrooz Rezvani; Kerpez, Kenneth;
> Vladimir.Oksman@infineon.com; barry.omahony@intel.com;
> stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] Notes from 16-Oct call
>
> Dear all,Seeing that it does not look simple to check the
> UPBO, I would also prefer to see the set of UPBO tests
> reduced. A proposal that could make sense is to turn off the
> UPBO for all tests based on SELF and AWGN crosstalks as the
> level of power back-off is based on an optimization of the
> upstream bit rates in a given noise environment. This
> optimization seems to conflict with the goal of the self
> crosstalk tests, which are defined to stress the
> technology.My proposal is thus to turn off UPBO for all SELF
> and AWGN tests and keep it for noise A&F cases.Best
> regards,Miguel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> owner-stds-802-3-efm-copper@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm-copper@majordomo.ieee.org]On
> Behalf Of Behrooz Rezvani
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:55 AM
> To: Kerpez, Kenneth; Vladimir.Oksman@infineon.com;
> barry.omahony@intel.com;
> stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] Notes from 16-Oct call
>
> folks please simplify.I suggest to have very few
> simple UPBO test. The functional performance of
> UPBO with all those tests are not really
> needed Behrooz
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kerpez, Kenneth
> To: 'Vladimir.Oksman@infineon.com' ;
> barry.omahony@intel.com ;
> stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 4:40 AM
> Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] Notes from
> 16-Oct call
> Vladimir,Don't forget that we had
> problems measuring the received UPBO PSD
> in the VDSL "Olympics." There should be
> a PSD mask specified at the transmitter,
> or at least the abilityto use narrow
> resolution bandwidths to measure the
> received UPBO PSD. Ken Kerpez
> Telcordia973-829-4747
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> owner-stds-802-3-efm-copper@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm-copper@majordomo.ieee.org]
> On Behalf Of
> Vladimir.Oksman@infineon.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21,
> 2003 5:11 AM
> To: barry.omahony@intel.com;
> stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
>
> Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper]
> Notes from 16-Oct call
>
> Dear colleagues, following
> the conference summary here is
> the proposal for VDSL UPBO
> assignment.In accordance with
> the ANSI and ETSI standards,
> every time UPBO is turned ON,
> a specific UPBO mode should be
> defined. The mode is
> determined by two
> parameters:1. Noise
> environment created by alien
> crosstalkers (A, F) for ANSI
> (998), (A, B, ... F) for ETSI
> (997)2. PSD mask used (M1,
> M2)The PSD mask is defined for
> all tests. For the tests alien
> crosstalkers are defined
> (Noise A, F, ....) , the UPBO
> mode should be selected by the
> alien noise environment
> set.For the tests alien
> crosstalkers are not defined
> (Self crosstalk or AWGN), use:
>
> - for 998 and Ex mask - use
> UPBO for noise F- for 998 and
> Cab mask - use UPBO for noise
> A- for 997 and Ex mask - use
> UPBO for noise E- for 997 and
> Cab mask - use UPBO for noise
> AAnother condition should be
> that the loop under test
> (simulation) and all the
> self-crosstalkers are of the
> same length with the same UPBO
> set. Vladimir-----Original
> Message-----
> From: O'Mahony, Barry
> [mailto:barry.omahony@intel.com]
>
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003
> 5:42 PM
> To:
> stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
>
> Subject: [EFM-Copper] Notes
> from 16-Oct call
>
>
> Attendees:
>
> Dong Wei
>
> Ed Eckert
>
> Sam Heidari
>
> Vladimir Oksman
>
> Arthur Marris
>
> Massimo Sorbara
>
> Hugh Barrass
>
> Miguel Peeters
>
> Bernard Debbasch
>
> Sabina Fanfoni
>
> Subject: Table 62B-1
> 10PASS-TS Test Cases
>
> The group agreed to
> refer to test cases
> by the "old" (D2.0)
> test numbers for the
> duration of the
> call.
>
> It was noted that
> the test cases fall
> into three groups:
>
> Group 1: 1-9 basic
> tests (10/10 Mbps)
>
> Group 2: 10-20
> notching off
>
> Group 3: 21-31
> notching on
>
> In general, Groups 2
> and 3 are identical
> conditions, except
> for the presence of
> notching.
>
> It was pointed out
> that some of the
> changes made
> in Ancona to Group 2
> were not made to
> Group 3. Since
> these changes
> involved reduction
> in reach, this makes
> the table
> inconsistent, as the
> presence of notching
> will not increase
> channel capacity.
>
> Accordingly, the
> attendees agreed
> that it would be
> desirable to change
> #29 to 750m, # 25 to
> 650m and #23 from
> Self noise to AWGN.
> There was not
> unanimous opinion to
> delete #22, as was
> done with #11
> in Ancona.
>
> However, there was
> general agreement
> that we would focus
> on Groups 1 & 3, and
> any changes made to
> Group 3 would be
> reflected in Group
> 2.
>
> Sabina stated we
> should use ETSI A/F
> noise models when we
> use ETSI profiles
>
> Vladimir took the
> assignment to supply
> more detailed
> specification for
> UPBO, especially for
> Self and AWGN noise
> models, prior to the
> next conference
> call.
>
> One of the
> unsatisfied TR's
> asks that simulation
> results or another
> method be presented
> in order to justify
> the numbers in the
> table. In order to
> proceed with
> simulations, the
> assumptions must be
> agreed to.
>
> Miguel suggested we
> start with Annex F
> of the ETSI standard
> [ETSI TS 101 270-1
> V1.3.1 (2003-07)].
> He took the
> assignment to come
> up with a proposal
> for assumptions for
> the group to use,
> based upon the ETSI
> document, prior to
> the next conference
> call.
>
> Next conference call
> will be Thursday,
> 23-October, at 6
> p.m.Geneva time (9
> a.m. PDT).
>
>
>
>
>
begin:vcard
n:Fanfoni;Sabina
tel;fax:+39.039.6036270
tel;work:+39.039.6037346
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.st.com
org:STMicroelectronics;Access Networking BU
version:2.1
email;internet:sabina.fanfoni@st
title:Technical Marketing Manager
adr;quoted-printable:;;Via olivetti, 2=0D=0A;Agrate Brianza;;20041;Italy
fn:Sabina Fanfoni
end:vcard