From: Walter Katz [mailto:walter.m.katz@xxxxxxxxx] ;
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:02 AM
To: 'IBIS-Interconnect' <ibis-interconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: "Aggressors"
All,
For our discussion about Aggressor rules in Groups, I would like us to
consider the following common example:
Consider a 100 pin component (for simplicity I am assuming that all 100
pins are I/O and they are numbered from 1 to 100. Routing is done on one
layer, and each pin has 99% of its crosstalk from the connection on the
pin on either side. The package layout tools generates 100 Models, one for
each pin. Each Model has 6 terminals, two terminals are the Pin and Pad of
the "Victim" pin and two "Aggressor" terminals for the Pin and Pad for the
pins on either side of the "Victim" pin. For example,
1. Model "Pin_25" would have terminals Pin 25 and Pad 25 as "Victim",
and Terminals Pin 24, Pad 24, Pin 26 and Pad 27 as "Aggressors"
2. Model "Pin_1" would have terminals Pin 1 and Pad 1 as "Victim",
and Terminals Pin 2, Pad 2, Pin 100 and Pad 100 as "Aggressors"
3. Model "Pin_100" would have terminals Pin 100 and Pad 100 as
"Victim", and Terminals Pin 1, Pad 1, Pin 99 and Pad 99 as "Aggressors"
Every I/O pin has one Model with its terminals as a Victim, and two Models
with its terminals as Aggressors.
I claim that this should not generate any errors or warnings.
Does anyone disagree?
Walter
