Error performance objective for 25 GbE

Similar documents
Error performance objective for 400GbE

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

802.3bj FEC Overview and Status IEEE P802.3bm

RS-FEC Codeword Monitoring for 802.3cd

400GbE AMs and PAM4 test pattern characteristics

40GBASE-ER4 optical budget

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

802.3bj Scrambling Options

Backplane NRZ FEC Baseline Proposal

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

50GbE and NG 100GbE Logic Baseline Proposal

LPI SIGNALING ACROSS CLAUSE 108 RS-FEC

EEE ALERT signal for 100GBASE-KP4

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

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

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

Toward Convergence of FEC Interleaving Schemes for 400GE

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

Eric Baden (Broadcom) Ankit Bansal (Broadcom)

P802.3av interim, Shanghai, PRC

EFM Copper Technical Overview EFM May, 2003 Hugh Barrass (Cisco Systems), Vice Chair. IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force IEEE802.

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

40/100 GbE PCS/PMA Testing

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

Further Studies of FEC Codes for 100G-KR

Table LDCP codes used by the CLT {EPoC_PMD_Name} PCS for active CCDN

Investigation on Technical Feasibility of Stronger RS FEC for 400GbE

SMF Ad Hoc report. Pete Anslow, Ciena, SMF Ad Hoc Chair. IEEE P802.3bm, Geneva, September 2012

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

(51) Int Cl.: H04L 1/00 ( )

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

Simple Link Protocol (SLP)

FEC Options. IEEE P802.3bj January 2011 Newport Beach

REPORT/GATE FORMAT. Ed Boyd, Xingtera Supporters: Duane Remein, Huawei

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

10 Gigabit Ethernet Consortium Optical Interoperability Test Suite version 1.1

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

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

Maps of OMA, TDP and mean power. Piers Dawe Mellanox Technologies

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

Laboratory 4. Figure 1: Serdes Transceiver

Manchester and NRZ Configurable Protocol Decode

GPRS Measurements in TEMS Products. Technical Paper

Table LDCP codes used by the CLT {EPoC_PMD_Name} PCS for amplified CCDN

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

10GE WAN PHY: Physical Medium Attachment (PMA)

Memory-Depth Requirements for Serial Data Analysis in a Real-Time Oscilloscope

Training & EEE Baseline Proposal

COSC3213W04 Exercise Set 2 - Solutions

Performance Results: High Gain FEC over DMT

Problems of high DFE coefficients

FEC Architectural Considerations

10 Mb/s Single Twisted Pair Ethernet Proposed PCS Layer for Long Reach PHY Dirk Ziegelmeier Steffen Graber Pepperl+Fuchs

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

Analysis of Link Budget for 3m Cable Objective

10G EPON 1G EPON Coexistence

CU4HDD Backplane Channel Analysis

Analysis of Link Budget for 3m Cable Objective

IEEE Broadband Wireless Access Working Group <

IN A SERIAL-LINK data transmission system, a data clock

Improving Frame FEC Efficiency. Improving Frame FEC Efficiency. Using Frame Bursts. Lior Khermosh, Passave. Ariel Maislos, Passave

10 Gigabit Ethernet Consortium 10GBASE-X PCS Test Suite version 1.3b

40G SWDM4 MSA Technical Specifications Optical Specifications

An Ultra-Low Power Physical Layer Design For Wireless Body Area Network

WaveDevice Hardware Modules

100GBASE-FR2, -LR2 Baseline Proposal

FEC Applications for 25Gb/s Serial Link Systems

PAM8 Baseline Proposal

100G-FR and 100G-LR Technical Specifications

CS311: Data Communication. Transmission of Digital Signal - I

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

500 m SMF Objective Baseline Proposal

AT720USB. Digital Video Interfacing Products. DVB-C (QAM-B, 8VSB) Input Receiver & Recorder & TS Player DVB-ASI & DVB-SPI outputs

Commsonic. Satellite FEC Decoder CMS0077. Contact information

Implementation of Modified FEC Codec and High-Speed Synchronizer in 10G-EPON

Analysis on Feasibility to Support a 40km Objective in 50/200/400GbE. Xinyuan Wang, Yu Xu Huawei Technologies

II. SYSTEM MODEL In a single cell, an access point and multiple wireless terminals are located. We only consider the downlink

10GBASE-KR Start-Up Protocol

Sapera LT 8.0 Acquisition Parameters Reference Manual

IEEE Broadband Wireless Access Working Group <

Comparison of options for 40 Gb/s PMD for 10 km duplex SMF and recommendations

Summary of NRZ CDAUI proposals

INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

Programmable Pattern Generator For 10GBASE-R/W. Jonathan Thatcher. World Wide Packets

VLSI Chip Design Project TSEK06

EEG A1452 SCTE-104 Inserter Frame Card

Proposal for 10Gb/s single-lane PHY using PAM-4 signaling

CAUI-4 Chip to Chip and Chip to Module Applications

Ali Ghiasi. Nov 8, 2011 IEEE GNGOPTX Study Group Atlanta

CONVOLUTIONAL CODING

An Effort to Create Multi-vender Environment for 100 Mb/s P2P optical Ethernet Access in Japan

G.709 FEC testing Guaranteeing correct FEC behavior

White Paper Lower Costs in Broadcasting Applications With Integration Using FPGAs

PMD & MDIO. Jan 11, Irvine, CA. Jonathan Thatcher, Clay Hudgins, IEEE 802.3ae. 10 Gigabit Ethernet

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

400G-FR4 Technical Specification

Avigilon View Software Release Notes

AVTP Pro Video Formats. Oct 22, 2012 Rob Silfvast, Avid

Paper review on Mobile Fronthaul Networks

AT70XUSB. Digital Video Interfacing Products

Transcription:

Error performance objective for 25 GbE Pete Anslow, Ciena IEEE 25 Gb/s Ethernet Study Group, Ottawa, Canada, September 2014 1

History The error performance objective adopted for the P802.3ba, P802.3bj and P802.3bm projects was: Support a BER better than or equal to 10-12 at the MAC/PLS service interface However, when it was decided to employ FEC for most of the new PHYs in P802.3bj and P802.3bm, this objective could no longer be directly applied since far fewer unmarked errors than this can be tolerated at the MAC/PLS service interface in order to meet MTTFPA (Mean Time To False Packet Acceptance) expectations (see second slide of annex to this presentation). This resulted in the 100GBASE-CR4/KR4/KP4/SR4 PHYs defining their error performance using: a frame loss ratio (see 1.4.209a) less than 6.2 10 10 for 64-octet frames with minimum inter-packet gap. 1.4.209a frame loss ratio: The number of transmitted frames not received as valid by the MAC divided by the total number of transmitted frames. 2

400GbE project error performance objective In the 400GbE Study Group it was considered very likely that some of the 400GbE PHYs would incorporate FEC. This meant that an objective only related to the BER at the MAC/PLS service interface would be inappropriate. On the other hand, it was not certain that all 400GbE PHYs would incorporate FEC and many 802.3 participants are more familiar with error performance requirements stated as a BER rather than a frame loss ratio. The 400GbE Study Group solved this by adopting an error performance objective in the form: Support a BER of better than or equal to 10-13 at the MAC/PLS service interface (or the frame loss ratio equivalent) This contribution proposes that the 25GbE Study Group adopt a performance objective in the same format as this. 3

Ethernet Bit Error Ratio vs. bit rate Bit Error Ratio 1.E-07 1.E-08 1.E-09 1.E-10 1.E-11 1.E-12 1.E-13 1.E-14 1.E-15 10BASE-T 100BASE-T 1000BASE-X 1000BASE-T 10GBASE-R 10GBASE-T 40GBASE-T? 25G? 40GBASE-R 100GBASE-R 400G? 1.E-16 10M 100M 1G 10G 100G 4

Ethernet Bit Error Rate vs. bit rate Bit Error Rate (errors/hour) 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1 10BASE-T 100BASE-T 1000BASE-X 1000BASE-T 10GBASE-R 10GBASE-T 40GBASE-T? 25G? 40GBASE-R 100GBASE-R 400G? 0.01 10M 100M 1G 10G 100G 5

BER verification PMDs with FEC For routine measurement of modules that don t contain the FEC decoder, obtaining the pre-fec BER should be ok. However this would have to be backed up with at least occasional verification that the error statistics are such that the post FEC BER is met. The easiest way to do this is apply the FEC decoder and count errors or lost frames. PMDs without FEC Here extrapolation from measurements at 1E-12 and above could be used to indicate the expected performance to lower BER, but this would also have to be backed up with at least occasional measurement down to the BER target. 6

BER measurement times To obtain a reasonable estimate of the BER when the PHY is making some errors it is necessary to measure at least 10 errors. The time taken to do this at 25 Gb/s is: BER Time 1E-12 6.7 minutes 1E-13 1.1 hours 1E-15 4.6 days If the PHY does not make any errors then using Equation 9-11 from ITU-T G.Sup39: n log 1 C log 1 P E Where: n is the required number of error free bits C is the confidence level (e.g., 0.95 for 95% confidence) P E is the BER requirement (e.g., 10 12 ) Then the time taken for 95% confidence that the BER is below the requirement is: BER Time 1E-12 2 minutes 1E-13 20 minutes 1E-15 1.4 days 7

Conclusion Since in the study group phase, we cannot decide that all PHYs will use FEC it is proposed to adopt an error performance objective in the same format as for the P802.3bs 400GbE project. From slides 4 and 5, a BER objective of 1E-12 is in line with that of the Ethernet rates above and below 25G. The difficulty of verification for a BER of 1E-12 at a rate of 25 G discussed on slides 6 and 7 seems reasonable. Consequently, it is proposed to adopt an error performance objective of: Support a BER of better than or equal to 10-12 at the MAC/PLS service interface (or the frame loss ratio equivalent) 8

Annex 1 Derivation of FLR from BER 9

Flow through a typical FEC enabled stack PMD The BER at the FEC input may be much higher than the PHY performance objective. The BER required to meet the objective depends on the error statistics. FEC PCS MAC Correctable errors have been corrected (unless correction is bypassed). Detected but uncorrected errors are marked as bad using sync header violations. Some 66B blocks from FEC codewords containing detected but uncorrected errors have been converted to /E/ control codes. The only errors present but not marked are undetected errors which are very rare. MAC frames missing their start or terminate control codes or containing /E/ control codes or with invalid CRC are discarded. 10

BER at the MAC/PLS service interface As shown on the previous slide, at the MAC/PLS service interface (just above the MAC on the diagram on the left) the BER is very low in this FEC enabled architecture. The only errored bits are those that were not detected by the FEC decoder. We can get an estimate as to how often an error appears at this point in the stack from the usual MTTFPA target of the age of the universe. The FEC scheme used for 100GBASE-CR4/KR4/SR4 is capable of correcting all error patterns in a FEC codeword containing 7 or less errored symbols. This means that when a FEC codeword contains any undetected errors, there must be at least 8 of them. However, the CRC used by Ethernet frames is only capable of guaranteed detection of up to 3 errored bits located anywhere in a frame. For more errors than this it has a probability of failing to detect errors of 2-32. This means that a frame containing errors can only arrive at the MAC every 13.8E9/2^32 = 3.2 years. 11

Effect of uncorrectable errors For the stack shown two slides previously, the dominant effect of uncorrected errors at the FEC output is not that errors appear at the MAC/PLS service interface, it is that frames are discarded. However, this is also true for 64B/66B coded Ethernet systems without FEC. Here, nearly all errored frames contain 3 or less errors and are guaranteed to be discarded by the MAC because the CRC does not match the data. (Errored frames not guaranteed to be discarded only arrive once every 3 years). This means that if we set the error performance objective as a minimum Frame Loss Ratio (FLR), then this can be applied to both 64B/66B coded and FEC enabled PHYs. This is in accordance with 100GBASE-CR4/KR4/KP4/SR4 PHYs which define their error performance using: a frame loss ratio (see 1.4.209a) less than 6.2 10 10 for 64-octet frames with minimum inter-packet gap. 1.4.209a frame loss ratio: The number of transmitted frames not received as valid by the MAC divided by the total number of transmitted frames. 12

What is the relationship between BER and FLR? For the P802.3ba project the objective of a BER of better than or equal to 10-12 at the MAC/PLS service interface resulted in the BER at the PMD service interface being required to be better than or equal to 10-12 For the P802.3bj and P802.3bm projects the error performance objective was still defined as a BER. For FEC enabled applications this was then translated into an FLR requirement by calculating what FLR would result from that BER at the PMD output in a 64B/66B coded system. Consequently, this contribution proposes to follow the same principle for the 25GbE project and set the FLR objective by calculating what FLR would result from the desired BER at the PMD output in a 64B/66B coded system. 13

Size of MAC frames after 64B/66B coding A MAC frame starts with the Destination Address and ends with the frame check sequence. These bits are preceded by the interpacket gap (IPG), 7 octets of preamble and 1 octet of start-of-frame delimiter (SFD). IPG Preamble SFD Destination address Source address Length / Type MAC client data Pad Frame check sequence IPG The first octet of the preamble is mapped to a start control character by the RS and is always aligned to the start of a 64-bit block. Consequently, a 64 octet frame will be encoded as a Start 66-bit block (which contains the Preamble and SFD), followed by eight 66-bit blocks containing the MAC frame, followed by a Terminate 66-bit block containing 7 Idle control characters 10 66-bit blocks in all with minimum interpacket gap. Frame 14

Errors causing a frame to be dropped As described on the previous slide, a 64 octet MAC frame with minimum interpacket gap after 64B/66B coding is a Start block, 8 data blocks and a terminate block. Start Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Term. 8 x 66 bits According to the definition of R_TYPE in 82.2.18.2.3, Start is recognised as a sync header of 10 and a block type field of 0x78 and Terminate is recognised as a sync header of 10, a block type field of 0x87, 0x99, 0xAA, 0xB4, 0xCC, 0xD2, 0xE1 or 0xFF and all control characters are valid Therefore, with 64B/66B coding a frame will be dropped if there is an error in 8 x 66 bits for the data blocks + 10 bits in the Start block + 66 bits for the terminate block = 604 bits. Because of the error multiplication in the descrambler, it will also be dropped if there were errors in 16 of the preceding 58 bits, making a total of 620 bits that must be correct at the descrambler input per frame. 15

FLR from BER in a 64B/66B coded system If we assume that the errors are randomly distributed, then the FLR (as defined earlier) in a non-fec system can be found from: FLR = 1-(1-BER) 620 (1) For BER in the range of interest, this can be approximated by: FLR = BER * 620 (2) For BERs that might be candidates for an objective, this is: BER FLR 10-12 6.2 x 10-10 10-13 6.2 x 10-11 10-14 6.2 x 10-12 10-15 6.2 x 10-13 16

Thanks! 17