3. bicsi sp 2014 conference monday 12th may 2.30pm - debate over category 8
Post on 18-Jan-2016
6 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The debate over Category 8 Cabling
Ravi DoddavaramPsiber Data
rdoddavaram@psiber‐data.com
Brisbane
Given: We are moving towards higher link rates
Still Not Interesting
40 Gbps (LOM) or LAG
10 Gbps(LOM) Romely for instance
Virtual NICs push bandwidth requirements on Servers/Access
40G Base‐T working around the pitfalls
Power Consumption With 28nm Technology, power consumption ratio is about 2:1 as
40GBASE‐SR4 alternative IEEE has taken this into consideration hence higher bandwidth of
cabling Initial per port power is 4~5 Watts, (early 10GBASE‐T about 25 Watts)
40G Base‐T Class II, 1.6 GHz40G Base‐T Class I, 1.6 GHz
Source: ISO TR‐11801‐99‐1
40G Base‐T working around the pitfalls
Reach objective Two layer Datacenter architecture, Fabric Architectures lead to MoR
or EoR architectures 40GBase‐T for supporting 30m reach (EoR, MoR) configuration with a
30m objective10GBASE‐T deployment
40GBASE‐T deployment
40G Base‐T working around the pitfalls
Cost per Gb/port and utilization efficiency DAC supports up to 7m but utilization efficiency is poor Active links are expensive LOM of 10G will drive cost per Gb down EoR vs ToR debate
Then why Base‐T even today? ToR vs EoR
Source: Aquantia
Source: Aquantia
Then why Base‐T even today? ToR vs EoR
CAT 8 Cabling: Frequently Asked Questions
Why still copper networks? Rapid adoption of 10GBASE‐T Cheaper than Fiber Deployment for horizontal Cabling
When is it likely to happen? Standardization work in progress; PHY definition by mid 2016 Early adopters by 2017, depends on when NEM vendors launch
the technology (Acquantia, BroadCom etc. part of the development)
How different is Structured Cabling Value Chain? SI’s with UTP/FTP installation background extremely relevant,
but need an upgrade in skill set Investment in new set of tools necessary, tools capable of
supporting higher frequencies, connectivity etc.
Tug of War: 2GHz or 1600 MHz which is better?
Look at the holistic picture: 2GHz at what Crosstalk or Insertion loss limits?
Tug of War: 2GHz or 1600 MHz which is better?
Look at the holistic picture: 2GHz at what Crosstalk or Insertion loss limits?
Channel Capacity (Shannon Capacity, “Margin”): Key for IEEE to come up with the Physical layer Specification Both TIA and ISO limits either at 2000 MHz or 1600 MHz will
comply to IEEE requirement
Tug of War: 2GHz or 1600 MHz which is better?
Look at the holistic picture: 2GHz at what Crosstalk or Insertion loss limits?
Channel Capacity (Shannon Capacity, “Margin”): Key for IEEE to come up with the Physical layer Specification Both TIA and ISO limits either at 2000 MHz or 1600 MHz will
comply to IEEE requirement
Connectivity Three different types will be standardized
RJ45 Enhanced GG45 Enhanced TERA Enhanced*Certification Tools available today support all three options
Current status of Standards
• IEEE 802.3 NGBASE‐T Study Group has become the IEEE P802.3bq 40GBASE‐T Task Force. Expected by Feb’2016. Work has begun in defining the PHY specification
• IEEE is influencing alignment between TIA TR‐42.7 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 25/WG 3 on specifications for cabling systems being developed for use with 40GBASE‐T
• Current draft of TIA 568 C.2 for CAT 8 defined for most parameters for Channel performance
• Liaison from IEC TC46/WG9 to IEC SC25/WG3 for 2GHz Field Testing draft is agreed upon
• Field Tester standard, Level 2G task group has been established
TIA Category 8
1 MHz to 2000 MHz Support for 40GBASE‐T (IEEE P802.3bq) Insertion Loss (IL) is critical parameter 30m Channel Length, 26m Permanent Link Length
Approx. 55% of Channels <30m
Improved Cat6A components RJ45 Plug / Jack (Cat 8.1) F/UTP or S/FTP Cable 2 connector configuration
Extension of Cat6A Limits to 2000MHz. Additional higher performance grade based on enhanced
CAT7A components (Cat 8.2) TIA 568‐C.2‐1 Draft 0.9 (expected to be published in 1 year)
TIA Cabling for IEEE 802.3 40GBASE‐T (draft)
Class I2000 MHz
New & Improved Cat6AComponents
30m2 Connectors
Class II2000 MHz
New & Improved Cat7AComponents
30m2 Connectors
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
55.00
60.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
TIA Cat 8 CH IL TIA Cat 6A CH IL TIA Cat 6 CH IL TIA Cat5e CH IL
TIA Insertion Loss Limit
Cat 8*
Cat 6ACat 6Cat 5e
*CAT8 limits are based on early draft
ISO Cabling for IEEE 802.3 40GBASE‐T (draft)
Cat7A1000 MHz
Standardized Cat7A
Components
25m 2 Connectors
Cat7A1600 MHz
StandardizedCat7A
Components
30m2 Connectors
Class I1600 MHz
New & Improved Cat6A
Components
30m2 Connectors
Class II1600 MHz
New & Improved Cat7A
Components
50m2 Connectors
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
ISO Class I CH IL ISO Class II CH IL ISO 40G CH IL ISO FA CH IL
ISO F CH IL ISO EA CH IL ISO E CH IL ISO D CH IL*limits are based on
early draft
ISO Class I / Class II : Insertion Loss Limit
Class II*
Class I*FA 40G*
FA
EA FD E
How to qualify or Test CAT 8 Transmission performance
Transmission parameters are exactly same as those of CAT6A, Class EA requirements NEXT, RL, Insertion Loss, PSANEXT etc.
Frequency of measurement should be at least 1600 MHz Connecting Hardware (modules) yet to be standardized ISO yet to define the component specification, but TIA is
close to defining it Field Test standard is under way in both ISO/IEC as well as
TIA Disclaimer: Demonstration of CAT 8 cabling measurements
to draft standards doesn’t mean 40GBase‐T performance demonstration!
Testing without a standard? What does it mean.
Test Adapters & Calibration Artifacts
THRU / OPEN / SHORT / LOAD
Network Analyzer
Network Analyzer
Field Tester
17.08.2007 Seite 22
Return Loss
Near End Crosstalk
Insertion Loss
Known Issues with high frequency cable designs
Insertion Loss suck outs• Typically seen in screened systems above 1300 MHz.• Usually the cause is the improper shield termination to connectors, or
shield lay‐lengths.
Alien Crosstalk Field Measurements
Alien Crosstalk Measurements
‐120
‐110
‐100
‐90
‐80
‐70
‐60
‐500 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
F/UTP Cable ANEXT
"36‐12 ‐NA"
Pair_36‐12‐WX
‐120
‐100
‐80
‐60
‐40 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
UTP Cable ANEXT
"12‐12‐NA"
Pair_12‐12‐WX
Alien Crosstalk: Is it still the white Elephant?
Still a very key measurement for 10G Base‐T installations. Several installation issues go un‐noticed
Field testing doesn’t have to be complex anymore
One of the few measurements that directly correlates to BER (application bandwidth). TCL, ELCTCL are secondary effects which show up as Alien Crosstalk or Near End Crosstalk
Perhaps not so important in the shielded world (Realm of CAT 8) but work still in progress
Additional Measurements?
ELTCL, LCTCL, Coupling Attenuation
• Measure of balance of the twist of cabling and noise rejection of the cable
• Not very meaningful in the field because it is a inherent property of the cable or connector, not much can be done in the field to rectify it
• Will be interesting to see how repeatable the measurements are with different common mode impedances of different cables in the field
• A fault in ELTCL, Coupling Attenuation will always result in a NEXT, Alien Crosstalk failure. Instead of tightening limit for a new measurement might as well look at the NEXT performance
• ISO/IEC liaison letter to TC46 requests the committee the need to evaluate suitability of this measurement in the field along with Coupling attenuation measurement
End to End testing: Concept
Comparison with network analyzer is a problem due to soft de‐embedding in
channel testing
Issue typically seen at higher frequencies
Proposal to include “Patch cord” type test configuration for CAT 8 cables
Widely supported but no additional effort required as Field testers already
support “Patch Cord configuration”
Existing configuration Additional Test Configuration
The End Psiber Data is an active member on both TIA & ISO Cabling committees.
Level V Field Tester Standard expected soon (All of us field test manufacturers claim compliance, but the standard
is still in draft state)
Discussion on Level 2G has started (Please note the difference in the name no more level IV, V)
Thank you
Please email your questions & comments to rdoddavaram@Psiber-data.com
top related