Open System Architecture Selecting the Right Cable and Connectivity for Your Application Kenneth Cornelison Industry Consultant Wire and Cable Technology Engineering Resources
Key Discussion Points TIA system structure overview Component Ratings rated and verified Interoperability testing across different connectivity solutions Survey to evaluate performance across connectivity solutions Information valuable for system warranty content and scope Manufacturer system warranties - Key elements and attributes Summary
TIA and Standards Structure TIA Family of documents ranging from system to components Component, system, installation guidance and requirements IEC has similar set of documents for cables and structured cabling systems BICSI accreditation, ti standards d and document structure t
TIA Standards Overview Common standards - TIA 568; 569; 606; etc. Cover building, installation, administration Premise Standards - TIA 570; 758; 942; etc. Premises standards - Infrastructure Component Standards - TIA 568 Copper and Fiber
Rapidly Growing Technical Requirements TIA Cabling Standards Category 3: Cables and outlets up to 16 MHz. Category 5e: Cables and outlets up to 100 MHz with enhanced characteristics over cat 5. Category 6 : Cables and outlets up to 250 MHz. Category 6a : Cables and outlets up to 500MHz for 10Gbit Ethernet operation. ISO/IEC Cabling Classes - Similar structure to the TIA Class C Up to 16 MHz Category 3 Class D Up to 100 MHz Category 5e Class E Up to 250 MHz Category 6 Class Ea Up to 500MHz Category 6a (amend 1&2) Class F Up to 600 MHz Class Fa Up to 1000MHz (amend 1&2) NEXTGEN Category 8 Up to 2000MHz over 30m New Proposed Applications 2.5Gb, 5Gb and others
A Key Why to Standards Many reasons why for standards Common system and component characteristics facilitate system cost and ease of installation Interoperability for components and systems is one of the key reasons A basic premise of the Structured Cable System Encourages mass production, economies of scale, and broader applications Facilitates implementation of open system warranties Customer confidence Consistent and reliable performance
Compliant vs Verified Component Verification Third party vs internal testing and qualification Choosing components that t are independently d verified Warranties rely on verified components to assure performance
Structured Cabling Warranties and Performance Warranties are enhanced (and even enabled) by the standards and accreditation structure of TIA, IEC, BICSI and other organizations Warranty success depends on both the hardware performance and the installation skills of the installer Warranties available through certified installers An important result of having standards is the confidence in the market provided by standard components and installer skills
Project to Assess Link Performance Project initiated from a cable manufacturer s need to survey performance with recognized connectivity manufacturers Selection of widely used cable types and connectivity solutions Testing in Permanent link configuration
Testing Across Connectivity Manufacturers Purpose of Testing Cable manufacturers offer an open warranty on installed systems A need for an overall assessment of link performance for a range of approved connectivity solutions A way to confirm that the connectivity approval lists are appropriate for warranty coverage A snapshot verification of the open system architecture performance
90 Length of Category cable Cable test Establishing a Baseline Cable without connectors tested with automatic Network Analyzer (VNA) based test hardware as a baseline Key electrical parameters captured, including balance performance Good margin to both Cable and Permanent Link requirements
Conditions for Link Testing Permanent Link tested at 90m length Field tester used for testing All frequency sweep data exported and analyzed Performance margin and comparison to cable measurements summarized Permanent Link with two connections Terminal Outlet (TO) and Cross-connect (C1) Optional consolidation point (CP) not included
Testing Outline Multiple manufacturers of connectivity 6 for Category 6 UTP 6 for Category 6A UTP 3 for Category 6A FUTP Multiple tests for each combination Same length of cable used for all tests within Category family Cables listed and verified to TIA 568C.2 Limited number of operators following good practices Laboratory test environment
Category 6 Cable Baseline Results - NEXT (tested to 500MHz)
Category 6 RL and TCL Baseline Results (tested to 500MHz)
Cable vs Cable + Connector Electrical performance curves do change appearance when adding connectivity Split Pair Effects Connectivity design and circuitry Interaction with cable design
Cable and Cable + Connector A to Permanent Link Typical occurrence from all connectivity suppliers of an outlier NEXT response Overall, NEXT was the most variable across multiple connectors of the same supplier
Cat 6 Connector A Test Result Examples
Cat 6 Cable and Connector A Return Loss
Cat 6 Cable and Connector A TCL
NEXT Margin Data Overview Key Takeaway More variability than expected Main Remote
Return Loss Margin Data Example Consistency within a connector type
TCL Margin Data Example Consistency within a connector type
NEXT Permanent Link Performance Variability All connector types had variations from test to test But not all connector types had the same variation characteristics No one connector stood out across all combinations
Cat 6 NEXT Margin Variation 12-36 Across 6 different manufacturers
Cat 6 NEXT Margin Variation 12-78 Across 6 different manufacturers
Cat 6 NEXT Margin Variation 36-45 Across 6 different manufacturers
Category 6 Testing Summary Even with the same cable from test to test, NEXT had the most variability from test to test Other parameters, such as TCL and RL were more consistent All tests met Permanent link requirements with margin Variability did not seem to differ whether at main or remote end of the cable
Category 6A UTP and FUTP Testing The same test procedure was followed for Category 6A components 90m baseline test on cable 90m links tested in a 2 connector arrangement Consistent operator and termination techniques
6A Permanent Link NEXT Margins Connector A
Cat 6A UTP More consistent NEXT, but not always the same
Category 6A UTP Testing Summary Overall, more NEXT consistency between tests, and between connectivity solutions than with Category 6 Consistency in the other electrical parameters (RL, TCL) among the different connectivity solutions Key attribute for 6A UTP links is Alien crosstalk, which may lead to more consistent results
Category 6A FUTP NEXT Summary
Category 6A FUTP FUTP data similar to the Category 6 UTP data Variable NEXT results from test to test Consistent data for RL, IL, TCL, and other tests
Permanent Link Data Summary All connectivity combinations pass the industry permanent link standards Good electrical performance allows the user the option of selecting connectivity across other key parameters with assured performance Ease of installation; cost; availability; manufacturer support Data supports warranties from cable maker across a range of connectivity options
Key Warranty System Attributes Requires industry standard component compliance and verification Provides guaranteed performance levels for installed system Supplier resources system support, technology, capabilities Establishes chain of communication for system performance, maintenance Establishes responsible parties for problem resolution Establishes a set of components and systems with reliable performance 3 rd party location for system test data retention Warranted channels can support multiple and new applications
Access to product specific information Training Resources Scope of covered products Hands-on opportunities
Open and Closed System Warranties Advantages of an open system warranty Choosing components to suit installation needs Flexibility for installers, system integrators Backed by Industry standard specifications and structure Closed solutions have advantages, but some drawbacks Some closed solutions are a specific example of an open solution available elsewhere There are fewer closed solutions from one manufacturer than closed solutions that use at least two different manufacturers Closed solutions that are multi-company can and do come and go over time Limited product/performance options Warranty restrictions out of network products risk the entire project warranty
Accredited Installations Move, add, change documentation?
Read the warranty first Does it have Warranty Fine Print Limited time (even a few days) to notify warranty provider of problems? Ability to transfer warranties? Void if components are more than a few months old? A choice of components to best meet the user overall needs Provider training resources providing BICSI credits? A milestone date when the warranty starts? Availability of support resources Installer, component manufacturers, etc Coverage for permanent link portion or end to end?
Summary Survey test results confirm performance meeting requirements There are differences among the components in the testing, but all meet requirements Variability from test to test observed even with relatively controlled testing environment Variability with both Category 6 and 6A links All components tested from a 3 rd party verified supplier Warranty decisions Knowledge of warranty coverage, details, and requirements Limitations within warranty for timing of key events, warranty scope, etc Use of components with 3 rd party verification services Flexibility in choosing components and installers
Thank You