INTRACOM FX80 eband product evaluation

[simog72]

i'm asking help to the community to evaluate a EBAND solutions, starts with : Intracom FX80
then we try to go for the most popular alternatives IP20E , RTN380 , ALFOplus80HD , NEC EX, E-BANDcomm ..(Others?..siklu)
i will try to report highlight then (i hope) at the end should be nice to assign fair evaluation with help of comments

PTX :13dBm (4QAM) to 8dBm(256QAM)
MODUALTIONS :4QAM/4QAM(hard coded) to 256QAM
CAPACITY :440Mbps to 3Gbps (compressed)
BANDWIDTH :250/500MHz
#PORTS :2xGbE+ 1xOPT (or only 2?)
SYNC : SyncEth , 1588V2 TC BC

MANAGEMENT :CLI,WEB,Bluetooth
POWER : POE or Dedicated(-48DC)
ANTENNA :0,2m-0,6m class3 or Flat (H&S) class2
SWITCH PLATFORM: standard

i miss major stuff to add?or wrongs values reported?

could be intresting to know : uncompressed capacity and thresholds
thx

[ankarb]

After reading relevant data-sheet (http://intracom-telecom.com/download...nk-FX80_ds.pdf) I conclude:
* they claim 3Gbps L1 (256bytes ETH frame size, 500MHz channel BW, 256QAM) with MHS.
* Rx thresholds mentioned in the data-sheet
* 2x100/1000 Base-T (RJ45) +1xSFP Combo (1000 Base-SX/LX or CPRI)

I have some questions for E-band products. Please send your opinions and relevant info:
* Do you know which E-band product offers the largest throughput? (and under what assumptions)?
* Concerning fronthaul which offers more than CPRI option 3? (eg. CPRI option 4,5,6, ...)

Also I would like to add in our E-band list the following: E**** fronthaul and also Huawei RTN380H (they claim 2000 MHz channel spacing)

[simog72]

Hi Ankarb


ABOUT RTN380H:
RTN380H belongs to the 3th generation Huawei Eband,
the generation 2 (commonly accepted) are products with:
- 64QAM
- 1-2Gbps
- 2 - 3 GbE ports
- NOT XPIC or MIMOs
- 250/500MHz band selectable (some case 1GHz)
64QAM/500MHz -->2.3Gbps (uncompressed)
My personal note: mimo in 80GHz could be easier to manage/install compared with a standard frequency MIMO as Ceragon Ip20C proposals.back to Ebands...

First Generation were basic
1Gbps/1GHz 4QAM devices.

in "third generations" Eband equipements , MW suppliers promise to include
- additional and stable modulations 256QAM (at least) some 1024QAM(?)
- 250/500/MHz --> 1-2GHz band selectable
- additional GbE ports
- additional 10G port
- possibility to brench or XPIC (for 2+0 configs)
- Fronthault capability (ex CPRI)
the reference point is to transport 10Gbps (guaranteed) , and u can do that with XPIC/1GHz or with 2GHz bandwidth (MIMO?)

and RTN380H promise to stay properly in this segment of 10Gbps transport products.
i dont know the roadmap ..this could be intresting
i saw working demo/proto (end 2015) , but dont know commercial availability

a lot of MW supplier are working in such kind of evolution,
huawei is the only one promoting directly as available on web site
http://carrier.huawei.com/en/product...e-band/rtn380h

so i propose to activate a new forum thread to evaluate&compare for RTN380 and RTN380H after the FX80...


ABOUT FX80: i also red the FX80 datasheet but i have some black spots.
What exacly means MHS , what kind of compression is ? (interframe gap remover ? )
to me it is not clear. On "L1 rate" values Intracom put a note on MHS...
in my opinion "Guaranteed or NET throughput " fit perfectly to show real capacity performances in a competitive scenario.
(basically to show the independency on frame packet size) ..i dont know why they report such little measleading values.
- if MHS is a interframe gap remover i propose to correct with a minus 4-5% less the capacity to obtain NET capacity basing correction on 256byte frame . (what u think?)
- i saw the tresholds ( seems to be V good ) , are reported (in your opinion) with +/-4 dBm tolerance?

about eband with more then CPRI 3 type port / capacity 2457mbps ..i will try investigate..i dont know anythings exept RTN380H
thx you for sharing your opinion!

[ankarb]

Concerning CPRI investigation, it would be interesting also to know if vendors support the new ORI standard. ORI 002-1 defined a standard IQ compression on LTE 10 MHz, 15 MHz and 20 MHz channels, which reduces the overall capacity of IQ stream by a factor of 2.
For example for 20MHz channel bandwidth (2x2 MIMO) the CPRI fronthaul rate=2 457,6 Mbps, while the ORI (with standard compression)=1 044,48 Mbps

[simog72]

ORI can be adobted only if E-NODE (BBU - RRH) suppliers will decide to have rigid standards then the CPRI .
In that way they could open also to mixed BBU - RRH configurations (eg. Huawei RRH and ALU BBU and transport fronthaul eg.Intracom)
Tha's way i dont think ORI will be adopted..each supplier (in my view) want to be owner of the complete NODE technologies!
Exept for the fronthaul where seems permitted only CPRI bulk transport from another MW vendor.
ORI seems to be a more rigid CPRI frame utilizations
infact CPRI has space into the frame open to be customized vendor by vendor..so contains still room to be "proprietary" customized provider by provider.

the result NOW , is that you can have a lot of Microwave provider capable to transport (as a stupid forwarder) CPRI but not open it and for exemple to compress I/Q samples inside.

Exist a single real exemple of a MW provider ,that use a knowledge of BBU - RRH proprietary interface (CPRI frame customization) to open it and work on I Q samples inserted in CPRI frames .. but the solution is "dedicated" and it can work only with that MW provider "A" with ENodeB provider "B"

adopting ORI could results in the possibility open to all :
BBU , RRH , and Transport (eg MW,optics) to all the players

that's way i think can be hard to see ORI adopted ..but WHO KNOWS..(NGFI - RoE?)

This is what i understood

i m not a specialist so "feedback" can be a nice to have..and help to reporting errors maybe occurs in my post

Help needed also for open points in the previous posts on FX80 : MHS and tresholds doubts!
i would like to close the brief FX80 evaluation and open the new brief evaluation for RTN380 and 380H

with the help of the people of the forum of course

[ankarb]

ORI offers compression as I mentioned in my previous post. So why a vendor not to use it? I believe that it would be advantage to require less fronthaul capacity.

[simog72]

compression it is only a technical aspect
OPEN the interoperability with all vendors is more an economical/strategic aspect

i agree that ORI (for technical aspect: reducing capacity needs ) it's intresting..
but this is only a part of the situation


ankarb i also would like to close FX80 post
please provide ur feedback "if u have" on MHS and thresholds .
if u please, u could open a new post for a new product evaluation (RTN, ALFO80HD, ERSSON 6352 ..)
i hope that also other users could contribute to the evaluation