Achieving BER/FLR targets with clause 74 FEC. Phil Sun, Marvell Adee Ran, Intel Venugopal Balasubramonian, Marvell Zhenyu Liu, Marvell

Similar documents
Analysis of Link Budget for 3m Cable Objective

Error performance objective for 25 GbE

Analysis of Link Budget for 3m Cable Objective

Error performance objective for 400GbE

RS-FEC Codeword Monitoring for 802.3cd

A Way to Evaluate post-fec BER based on IBIS-AMI Model

Further Clarification of FEC Performance over PAM4 links with Bit-multiplexing

802.3bj FEC Overview and Status IEEE P802.3bm

Update on FEC Proposal for 10GbE Backplane Ethernet. Andrey Belegolovy Andrey Ovchinnikov Ilango. Ganga Fulvio Spagna Luke Chang

Clause 74 FEC and MLD Interactions. Magesh Valliappan Broadcom Mark Gustlin - Cisco

EEE ALERT signal for 100GBASE-KP4

Further Investigation of Bit Multiplexing in 400GbE PMA

50GbE and NG 100GbE Logic Baseline Proposal

802.3bj Scrambling Options

SECQ Test Method and Calibration Improvements

Summary of NRZ CDAUI proposals

100G PSM4 & RS(528, 514, 7, 10) FEC. John Petrilla: Avago Technologies September 2012

Canova Tech. IEEE 802.3cg Collision Detection Reliability in 10BASE-T1S March 6 th, 2019 PIERGIORGIO BERUTO ANTONIO ORZELLI

Need for FEC-protected chip-to-module CAUI-4 specification. Piers Dawe Mellanox Technologies

Draft Baseline Proposal for CDAUI-8 Chipto-Module (C2M) Electrical Interface (NRZ)

Brian Holden Kandou Bus, S.A. IEEE GE Study Group September 2, 2013 York, United Kingdom

LPI SIGNALING ACROSS CLAUSE 108 RS-FEC

CDAUI-8 Chip-to-Module (C2M) System Analysis #3. Ben Smith and Stephane Dallaire, Inphi Corporation IEEE 802.3bs, Bonita Springs, September 2015

TDECQ update noise treatment and equalizer optimization (revision of king_3bs_01_0117) 14th February 2017 P802.3bs SMF ad hoc Jonathan King, Finisar

Comment #147, #169: Problems of high DFE coefficients

100Gb/s Single-lane SERDES Discussion. Phil Sun, Credo Semiconductor IEEE New Ethernet Applications Ad Hoc May 24, 2017

Backplane NRZ FEC Baseline Proposal

CU4HDD Backplane Channel Analysis

Training & EEE Baseline Proposal

Error Performance Analysis of a Concatenated Coding Scheme with 64/256-QAM Trellis Coded Modulation for the North American Cable Modem Standard

Thoughts on 25G cable/host configurations. Mike Dudek QLogic. 11/18/14 Presented to 25GE architecture ad hoc 11/19/14.

10GBASE-R Test Patterns

FEC Codes for 400 Gbps 802.3bs. Sudeep Bhoja, Inphi Vasu Parthasarathy, Broadcom Zhongfeng Wang, Broadcom

Thoughts about adaptive transmitter FFE for 802.3ck Chip-to-Module. Adee Ran, Intel Phil Sun, Credo Adam Healey, Broadcom

INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

Toward Convergence of FEC Interleaving Schemes for 400GE

400GbE AMs and PAM4 test pattern characteristics

CDAUI-8 Chip-to-Module (C2M) System Analysis. Stephane Dallaire and Ben Smith, September 2, 2015

Problems of high DFE coefficients

FEC Issues PCS Lock SMs. Mark Gustlin Cisco IEEE Dallas 802.3ba TF November 2008

TERRESTRIAL broadcasting of digital television (DTV)

PAM8 Baseline Proposal

802.3bj FEC Overview and Status. 400GbE PCS Baseline Proposal DRAFT. IEEE P802.3bs 400 Gb/s Ethernet Task Force

100G BASE-KP4 Interference tolerance ad hoc January 22 Mike Dudek Qlogic Charles Moore Avago

MEASUREMENT- BASED EOL STOCHASTIC ANALYSIS AND DOCSIS 3.1 SPECTRAL GAIN AYHAM AL- BANNA, DAVID BOWLER, XINFA MA

Detailed. EEE in 100G. Healey, Velu Pillai, Matt Brown, Wael Diab. IEEE P802.3bj March, 2012

COM Study for db Channels of CAUI-4 Chip-to-Chip Link

Duobinary Transmission over ATCA Backplanes

100G CWDM Link Model for DM DFB Lasers. John Petrilla: Avago Technologies May 2013

Open electrical issues. Piers Dawe Mellanox

De-correlating 100GBASE-KR4/CR4 training sequences between lanes

Module 11 : Link Design

Eric Baden (Broadcom) Ankit Bansal (Broadcom)

FEC IN 32GFC AND 128GFC. Scott Kipp, Anil Mehta June v0

BER margin of COM 3dB

10GBASE-LRM Interoperability & Technical Feasibility Report

50 Gb/s per lane MMF baseline proposals. P802.3cd, Whistler, BC 21 st May 2016 Jonathan King, Finisar Jonathan Ingham, FIT

IEEE Broadband Wireless Access Working Group <

Development of an oscilloscope based TDP metric

The Case of the Closing Eyes: Is PAM the Answer? Is NRZ dead?

AMI Simulation with Error Correction to Enhance BER

Data Rate to Line Rate Conversion. Glen Kramer (Broadcom Ltd)

802.3bj FEC Overview and Status. PCS, FEC and PMA Sublayer Baseline Proposal DRAFT. IEEE P802.3ck

THE SPECTRAL EFFICIENCY OF DOCSIS 3.1 SYSTEMS AYHAM AL- BANNA, DISTINGUISHED SYSTEM ENGINEER TOM CLOONAN, CTO, NETWORK SOLUTIONS

Optimum Frame Synchronization for Preamble-less Packet Transmission of Turbo Codes

Development of an oscilloscope based TDP metric

FEC Selection for 25G/50G/100G EPON

WiBench: An Open Source Kernel Suite for Benchmarking Wireless Systems

Adaptive decoding of convolutional codes

Comparison of NRZ, PR-2, and PR-4 signaling. Qasim Chaudry Adam Healey Greg Sheets

64G Fibre Channel strawman update. 6 th Dec 2016, rv1 Jonathan King, Finisar

100G SR4 Link Model Update & TDP. John Petrilla: Avago Technologies January 2013

MR Interface Analysis including Chord Signaling Options

Design Project: Designing a Viterbi Decoder (PART I)

CAUI-4 Chip to Chip and Chip to Module Applications

P802.3av interim, Shanghai, PRC

TROUBLESHOOTING DIGITALLY MODULATED SIGNALS, PART 2 By RON HRANAC

On Figure of Merit in PAM4 Optical Transmitter Evaluation, Particularly TDECQ

Investigation on Technical Feasibility of Stronger RS FEC for 400GbE

FPGA Implementation of Convolutional Encoder And Hard Decision Viterbi Decoder

IEEE Broadband Wireless Access Working Group <

Advanced HDTV System Analyzers

100GBASE-SR4 Extinction Ratio Requirement. John Petrilla: Avago Technologies September 2013

An Implementation of a Forward Error Correction Technique using Convolution Encoding with Viterbi Decoding

FEC Architectural Considerations

Line Signaling and FEC Performance Comparison for 25Gb/s 100GbE IEEE Gb/s Backplane and Cable Task Force Chicago, September 2011

Systematic Tx Eye Mask Definition. John Petrilla, Avago Technologies March 2009

RS232 Connection. Graphic LCD Screen. Power Button. Charger Adapter Input LNB Output. MagicFINDER Digital SatLock Operating Manual

Advanced Serdes Debug with a BERT

Performance Results: High Gain FEC over DMT

LTE RF Measurements with the R&S CMW500 according to 3GPP TS Application Note. Products: R&S CMW500

100G MMF 20m & 100m Link Model Comparison. John Petrilla: Avago Technologies March 2013

Knovative Where Knowledge Drives Innovation

IEEE P802.3cd Ad Hoc meeting October 26, 2016

Cost Effective High Split Ratios for EPON. Hal Roberts, Mike Rude, Jeff Solum July, 2001

Transmitter Specifications and COM for 50GBASE-CR Mike Dudek Cavium Tao Hu Cavium cd Ad-hoc 1/10/18.

100GBASE-DR2: A Baseline Proposal for the 100G 500m Two Lane Objective. Brian Welch (Luxtera)

Minimax Disappointment Video Broadcasting

COMP 9519: Tutorial 1

Performance Improvement of AMBE 3600 bps Vocoder with Improved FEC

Transcription:

Achieving BER/FLR targets with clause 74 FEC Phil Sun, Marvell Adee Ran, Intel Venugopal Balasubramonian, Marvell Zhenyu Liu, Marvell

Frame Loss Ratio 802.3by objective: Support a BER of better than or equal to 10-12 at the MAC/PLS service interface (or the frame loss ratio equivalent) (P802_3by_Objectives) What is the frame loss ratio equivalent? 802.3bj and 802.3bm specified frame loss assuming 64-octet MAC frame with minimum inter-packet gap. After 64B/66B coding, this consists of a start block, 8 data blocks and a terminate block. The total PCS data size is 10 blocks. Start Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Term With 64B/66B coding, a frame will be dropped if there is an error in 8 66 bits for the data blocks + 10 bits in the Start block + 66 bits for the terminate block = 604 bits. Because of error multiplication effect of the descrambler, a total of 620 bits must be correct at the descrambler input per frame. (anslow_01a_1112_mmf) 2

Frame Loss Ratio A frame containing any errors on the 620 bits that must be correct is dropped, so for BER=10-12, the frame loss ratio is: FLR = 620 10-12 = 6.2 10-10. With FEC, assuming any uncorrectable codeword is marked as bad, all packets contained in this codeword are dropped. In addition, the packet after this codeword may also be corrupted due to scrambler error multiplication. Therefore codeword error ratio is (brown_3bj_02_0912): CER = FLR/(1+MAC_Frame_Size/Codeword_Size) Clause 91 RS-FEC contains 80 64-bit blocks. Therefore, the requirement is CER=FLR/(1+10/80)=0.89 FLR=5.52 10-10. Clause 74 FEC contains 32 64-bit blocks. Therefore, the requirement is CER=FLR/(1+10/32)=0.76 FLR=4.71 10-10. 3

DFE Error Propagation DFE error propagation can cause a single random error to become a long burst, which can severely impact FEC error correction capability. A simple assumption is the Gilbert model ([1], cideciyan_02a_1111) with parameter a. Under this model, the probability of having a burst longer than L is P(burst longer than L) = BER a L This model is representative of a DFE with a single tap or one dominant tap. For PAM-2, 0 a 0.5 is the BER assuming a previous decision was wrong. For a longer DFE, a more complex analysis is required. For example, 5-tap DFE error propagation effect for different channels has been studied in liu_01_1105. The COM tool (originally developed for 802.3bj) performs calculation of burst probabilities according to assumed DFE taps and noise distributions. (developed for CAUI-4 in 802.3bm) [1] E. N. Gilbert (1960), "Capacity of a burst-noise channel", Bell System Technical Journal 39: 1253 1265. 4

DER target for Clause 74 FEC Clause 74 FEC is binary burst error correction code (2112,2080). It corrects a single burst up to 11 bits. Uncorrectable codewords are mainly caused by either two uncorrelated errors anywhere (almost) in the codeword (denoted 2E), or a burst longer than 11 bits (denoted 1E/11P). Assuming the Gilbert model with parameter a, for a codeword of length 2112, CER can be determined from the detector error ratio (DER): CCCCCC = 2112 2 DDDDRR 2 + 2112 aa 11 2112 DDDDDD DDDDDD + 2112 aa 11 DDDDDD 2 2 For a given FLR target and the calculated CER, the DER requirement can be extracted: When DDDDDD 2 2112 aa11, 1E/11P is more probable than 2E, CCCCCC 2112 aa 11 DDDDDD, and the requirement becomes: DDDDDD < CCCCCC 2112 aa 11. When DDDDDD 2 2112 aa11, 2E is more probable than 1E/11P, CCCCCC 2112 DDDDDD becomes: DDDDDD < 2 CCCCCC 2112. 2 2, and the requirement An equivalent expression for the tipping point is 0.5 CCCCRR 2aa 2 11 (when 50% of the codeword errors are caused by error propagation). The effect of a and DER on CER is shown on the next slide. 5

DER Target for Clause 74 FEC To make error propagation insignificant, since the CER limit for clause 74 FEC is 4.71 10-10, we should have 4.71 10 10 > 4aa 2 11 or aa < 4.71 10 10 4 1 22 = 0.354 If this is satisfied, the requirement for satisfying the FLR objective becomes DER < ~10-8. DFE EP Parameter (a) 0.10 0.35 0.50 DER Requirement 1.45 10-8 1.05 10-8 4.57 10-10 6

COM DFE limit for Clause 74 FEC What is required to get a<0.354? For a single-tap DFE with Gaussian noise that yields DER=10-8, we have SSSSSS = QQ 1 (10 8 ) With tap value b, a wrong decision causes (with probability ½) a lower SNR: SSSSSS EEEE = 1 2bb QQ 1 10 8 aa = 0.5 QQ(SSSSRR EEEE ) a 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 X: 0.55 Y: 0.3563 We can solve for b that yields SSSSRR EEEE = QQ 1 (2 0.354) 0.05 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 b max As the graph shows, the limit is b 0.55. To account for multi-tap DFE, we suggest using b max =0.5 which provides a healthy margin (the assumption of one dominant tap seems justifiable from many past presentations). 7

Receiver tolerance test limits When RS-FEC is used, receiver tolerance test requirements are specified in terms of symbol error ratio (symbol error counters are available). With clause 74 FEC, we need another metric and counters. Clause 74 includes codeword error counters (FEC_corrected_blocks_counter and FEC_uncorrected_blocks_counter see 74.8.4) Since we established the CER requirements for this FEC, we can state the test requirements as: Measured codeword error rate < 4.71 10-10 8

DER Target for RS-FEC 802.3by adopted the RS-FEC code of clause 91, RS(528,514) over GF(210), correcting up to 7 10-bit symbols. If only random errors are considered, raw RS symbol error rate before FEC is SER=1-(1-DER) 10. Uncorrectable codewords are caused by more than 7 symbol errors, so the uncorrectable FEC codeword error rate is: 528 CCCCCC = 528 ii ii=8 SSSSRR ii 1 SSSSSS 528 ii When burst errors are considered, 7 or fewer random errors can corrupt more than 7 10-bit symbols and cause uncorrectable codewords. CER can be modeled as: CER=P(1 symbol error) P(1 burst error corrupts more than 7 symbols) + P(2 symbol error) P(2 burst errors corrupt more than 7 symbols) + + P(7 symbol error) P(7 burst errors corrupt more than 7 symbols) + P(more than 7 symbol errors) Analysis results are shown in the next slide. They support the requirement DER<10-5 used in 802.3bj even for a=0.5 (the maximum value in the Gilbert model). 9

DER Target for RS-FEC DFE EP Parameter (a) 0.10 0.35 0.50 DER Requirement 3.89 10-5 2.24 10-5 1.55 10-5 10

Proposal Use the following values for COM whenever BASE-R FEC (Clause 74) is used: DER=10-8 b max (1...14)=0.5 Require codeword error ratio < 4.7 10-10 in receiver tolerance tests whenever BASE-R FEC is used (using the sum of FEC_corrected_blocks_counter and FEC_uncorrected_blocks_counter). For RS-FEC mode, retain the COM parameters DER=10-5 and b max (1..14)=1 and the requirement SER<10-4 in receiver tests. 11

Thank you! Questions? Slides in backup section: DER Targets for Lower FLR 12

DER Targets for Lower FLR FLR=6.2 10-10 yields mean time between frame loss events of 40 seconds. Some applications may demand much longer MTTBFL (such as over the weekend ) MTTBFL is about 4.6 days if FLR=6.20 10-14, or BER=10-16 for uncorrelated errors (factor of 10-4 better than 802.3by objective!) What does that translate to? DFE EP Parameter (a) DER No FEC BASE-R RS-FEC 0.10 1x10-16 1.45x10-10 8.71x10-6 0.35 1x10-16 1.45x10-12 3.24x10-6 0.50 1x10-16 4.57x10-14 1.91x10-6 13