take
several seconds for it to re-establish and some routing information may have
to be re-learned).
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 8:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: SONET ESD performance
I beg to
I beg to disagree. I have reservations about "no error" criteria.
That's imposing a far greater restriction on equipment than
Criteria A for immunity. Now granted the immunity standards
are in a different spirit than the Bellcore Standards. But, it would
seem as though the errored second is mor
rge Stults
[own opinions only]
-Original Message-
From: Martin Garwood [mailto:mgarw...@approvalspecialists.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 8:01 PM
To: Scott Lemon; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: SONET ESD performance
Scott,
The permissible errors rela
Debatable in my experience which is not a lot.
There's two totally different standards for errors.
One's a bit error limit and the other is a time
errored limit.
An errored second can have any amount of
errors during that second. It's not a bit error limit.
It's a time errored limit. Bu
sday, July 25, 2001 11:43 AM
Subject: SONET ESD performance
>
> Hi group,
> I am looking for guidance with respect to allowable "service-affecting
> responses" for a SONET system (e.g. OC-48) when tested to GR-1089 ESD
> immunity requirements. GR-1089 R2-3 states that &qu
Hi Scott and the group,
Just a thought... If the equipment you are testing responds unfavorably
to something the environment, it does not matter that you pass GR-1089.
And, I have seen lots of stuff that affected lightwave equipment not
covered under 1089 that got the operating companies pretty u
Hi group,
I am looking for guidance with respect to allowable "service-affecting
responses" for a SONET system (e.g. OC-48) when tested to GR-1089 ESD
immunity requirements. GR-1089 R2-3 states that "service-affecting
responses, unless within system operating limits,...shall not occur."
Para. 2.3
7 matches
Mail list logo
