Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18509 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 12:48:42 -0000 Received: from warrior.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.227) by mailstore with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 12:48:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 22538 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 12:49:12 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 12:49:11 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 18JYss-0004N1-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:44:10 +0000 Received: from [165.254.158.18] (helo=mail.mcf.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18JYsq-0004Ms-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:44:09 +0000 Received: from parissn2 (213.41.137.138) by mail.mcf.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.2b2) for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:44:04 -0500 Message-ID: <004801c29b92$f7917230$0700000a@parissn2> From: "Stewart Nelson" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:45:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: LF: Re: RE: Re: ADSL EMC with LF operation? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02, USER_AGENT_OEversion=2.42 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Hi John and all, A few comments on measuring DSL interference effects: Here in Paris, I have the cheapest ADSL service from France Télécom. Advertised speeds are 512 kbps downstream and 128 kbps upstream. I am using a Cisco 827-4V, which is a combination modem, router, and VOIP unit. A portion of the result of a "show dsl interface atm0" command is shown below. There are verbose details about signal and noise in each bin which are not posted. Your modem should have similar information available, but the commands to show it will of course be different. The 608 kbps (DS) and 160 (US) values allow for protocol overhead. You can see that this line could accommodate much higher speeds. On my unit, the downstream Noise Margin updates every few seconds, so one could easily test if transmitting LF causes it to degrade (I don't have a transmitter here). If your real-time S/N is not displayed, then just reboot the modem with the transmitter on and see if the value (derived during training) changes. The DMT bins are 4 kHz each, so you can see that 136 kHz lands well between the US and DS bands; any trouble would be caused by harmonics. IMO, interference to the upstream is very unlikely. Moderate downstream interference will be corrected on the fly by the Reed-Solomon code; check the error statistics. Uncorrectable errors are retried at the DSL level, and when that fails, at the TCP level. Before TCP gives up, the modem will renegotiate and retrain with the DSLAM, resuming operation at a lower speed. As a result, I doubt that you will see any TCP failures. But I am quite curious if LF transmission causes any Reed-Solomon errors, or if the displayed downstream Noise Margin is reduced. 73, Stewart KK7KA --------------------------------------------------------------------- ATU-R (DS) ATU-C (US) Modem Status: Showtime (DMTDSL_SHOWTIME) DSL Mode: ITU G.992.1 (G.DMT) ITU STD NUM: 0x01 0x1 Vendor ID: 'ALCB' 'ALCB' Vendor Specific: 0x0000 0x0000 Vendor Country: 0x00 0x0F Capacity Used: 9% 23% Noise Margin: 33.5 dB 31.0 dB Output Power: 12.5 dBm 12.0 dBm Attenuation: 32.0 dB 19.0 dB Defect Status: None None Last Fail Code: None Selftest Result: 0x34 Subfunction: 0x02 Interrupts: 3197 (1 spurious) Activations: 1 SW Version: 3.666 FW Version: 0x1A04 Interleave Fast Interleave Fast Speed (kbps): 608 0 160 0 Reed-Solomon EC: 0 0 0 0 CRC Errors: 0 0 0 0 Header Errors: 0 0 0 0 Bit Errors: 0 0 BER Valid sec: 0 0 BER Invalid sec: 0 0 DMT Bits Per Bin 00: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 10: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 0 0 20: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 30: 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 40: 3 3 4 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 50: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 60: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 90: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for the comments guys - as I would expect all seems OK with the > "Engineer Installed". Does anyone have any experience of the "Wires only", > which to me seems more likely to be a problem? > > No-one has commented on any degredation of data on the ADSL connection due > to LF transmitting equipment in the shack - maybe the TCPIP protocol to an > extent hides any effect. > > Paul's comment below didn't seem to come through? > > 73 John, G3WKL