Re: [8023-10GEPON] Reminder to presenters and Time slot request
Dear Maurice,
I would assume that the PRXR indicates clearly that the
system is a PON with 10G and 1G downstream and 10G upstream only ...
the D/U application in the name will only create confusion
with the D/U used to indicate the OLT/ONU port types ...
Best wishes
Hi Frank in the case of a ONU
transmitting upstream at 1G and receiving downstream at 10G,
how do you be specific to prevent
confusion other than to assume that nobody would be so
silly as to have a 10G up 1G down ONU?
Best Regards
Maurice Reintjes
MindspeedTM
Hillsboro,
Oregon,USA
Office Phone (503)-914-5370
Mobile
(503)-701-0797
| Frank Effenberger
<feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM>
03/06/2007 02:01 PM
|
Please respond
to
Frank Effenberger
<feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM> |
|
|
To
| STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| Re: [8023-10GEPON] Reminder to
presenters and Time slot request |
|
Indeed, “D” and “U” are already used, where “D” implies the
OLT part, and “U” is the ONU part.
From: maurice.reintjes@mindspeed.com
[mailto:maurice.reintjes@mindspeed.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007
4:56 PM
To: Frank Effenberger
Cc:
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON]
Reminder to presenters and Time slot request
Frank: A further clarification for 10/1GBASE-PRX might be:
10D1UGBASE-RPX , unless that violates some other naming convention.
I
would amplify the comment that "...27 port types is alot" to: 27
port types is wayyyy too much, and will ensure a lack of market
traction.
You may recall that Jonathan Thatcher tried to (with limited success)
reduce the possible number of port types in the
initial
10G (802.3ae) standards meetings. Had there been more, market
traction in 10G would even be less than is at the
present
time, although these types of things end up in endless debates, best had over a
beer.
Reducing port types to a few good ones is a challenge
for the whole group, and will require setting altruism before
personal
bias.
Best Regards
Maurice
Reintjes
MindspeedTM
Hillsboro, Oregon,USA
Office Phone
(503)-914-5370
Mobile (503)-701-0797
| Frank Effenberger
<feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM>
03/06/2007 11:41 AM
|
Please respond
to
Frank Effenberger
<feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM> |
|
|
To
| STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| Re: [8023-10GEPON] Reminder to
presenters and Time slot request |
|
Duane and Marek,
I am very happy that you have looked into
these editorial matters. Your
plans seem very logical.
Some musing on the issue of naming: In my presentation on
power budgets, I
give some consideration for names. The "X" in the
previous PON optics was
associated with the 8b10b coding. Since all the
10G proposals we are
talking about so far (I think) use the 64b66b coding.
Therefore, the
correct letter to use is "R".
The
asymmetric case raises interesting questions regarding what to call it,
since
this case will use (I think) different data rates AND different coding
in
either direction. I think the simplest way to extend this would be
to
just put both designations into the name.
So, the symmetric
PONs would have the letter designation: PR, and the
asymmetric PONs would be
called: PRX (which has the added benefit of
sounding vaguely sexy.)
In the presentation, I tally up the port types, and end up with 12
(3 loss
grades * 2 speed combinations * 2 ends). There are actually
only 7 new
power budgets (6 10G budgets, plus the 29dB upstream 1G budget).
It is interesting to note that the 12 port types listed above
imply the
support of a single data rate in either direction. Actually,
if we are
truly rigorous, there may be additional OLT port types, because I
think it
is good if the OLT phy can support both 10G and 1G at the same time.
I have
revised my presentation (attached) to include the 'truth table'
that
considers all of these combinations.
On the leading speed
grade designation: we start with "1000BASE" and
"10GBASE". If we
just hybridize, we get the unwieldy "10G1000BASE" - that's
no good. We
could shorten to "10/1GBASE". Or, we could follow Glen's
advice and say
"11GBASE". Actually, both of these could be useful, because
the 10/1
could be used for the asymmetric case, while 11 could be used
for
dual-support. I add these thoughts into the revision, as well.
Of course, we can try to pare down all the combinations to a
smaller set.
Certainly, 27 port types (including the existing 1G PONs) is a
lot.
Sincerely,
Frank
Effenberger.
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Remein
[mailto:duane.remein@ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 6:00
PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [8023-10GEPON]
Reminder to presenters and Time slot request
All,
Please remember that
Glen is traveling and has asked me to upload
presentations to the IEEE WEB
site. So far I have 1 presentation from
Peter Anslow, 5 from Frank E.,
1 from Marek H. and 1 from Glen (along
with the one from myself
attached).
Glen,
Can I please get about 15 minutes to present the
attached file on behalf
of Marek and myself at the Orlando meeting?
The presentation covers
some preliminary logistics to help provide us
with direction in
preparing for Draft 1 editing
tasks.
Thanks
Duane