Re: [EFM-Copper] Notes from 16-Oct call
Hugh,
I think when you run measurements 'with UPBO' this should include both a
reach measurement and a measurement ' of UPBO compliancy'.
Sabina
hbarrass@cisco.com wrote:
> Sam,
>
> I think you are confusing "measuring the performance *with* UPBO and
> "measuring the performance *of* UPBO."
>
> The question is simply whether or not you enable UPBO when you are
> running a specific test.
>
> Hugh.
>
> Sam Heidari wrote:
>
>> Vladimir,
>>
>> I am not sure of your last statement; I thought that this was the
>> performance compliancy matrix. If you do agree that a partial test
>> is enough why do we need to make it too difficult? Measuring the
>> performance with UPBO is very time consuming and usually a single
>> distance measurement (end of reach) does not provide the full
>> picture. I would support Miguel's and Sabina's proposal to limit
>> the testing of UPBO, but do it right for the remaining ones.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vladimir.Oksman@infineon.com
>> [mailto:Vladimir.Oksman@infineon.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:40 AM
>> To: Miguel.Peeters@broadcom.com; brezvani@ikanos.com;
>> kkerpez@telcordia.com; Vladimir.Oksman@infineon.com;
>> barry.omahony@intel.com; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] Notes from 16-Oct call
>>
>> 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
>> A Another
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ttendees:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A
>> cordingly,
>> 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