Re: [802.3_NGEPON] NG-EPON Study Group Weekly meeting notes

[Edwin Mallette <edwin.mallette@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jorge,

In general I’m supportive of what you propose. I have a couple more detailed comments…

• it appears you’re going down from four PHYs to two PHYs by removing the objective of "An EPON PHY … of at least 40 Gb/s.”  Essentially the objective you provided would only provide a single symmetric rate and a single asymmetric rate.  My read of the original objective is written in a way that we could end up with both a 25Gbps PHY and a 40Gbps PHY, whereas your new language suggests to me that we would end up with only a >=25Gbps PHY.  I’m not sure whether that’s intentional or not.
• The new objective of "An EPON PHY … that is a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s downstream and a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s upstream” seems to lock us into the 25Gbps rate.  Perhaps we could get around that by restating the objective like this: "An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at a symmetric data rate that is a multiple of the selected downstream rate (e.g. 25Gbps or 40Gbps) and a multiple of the selected upstream rate.”

Regards,

Ed

From: Jorge Salinger <jorge_salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Jorge Salinger <jorge_salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, August 24, 2015 at 11:51 AM
To: <STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] NG-EPON Study Group Weekly meeting notes

Folks,

I have been having discussions with a few people on an expansion of the objectives, which I would like to bring up to everyone. Curtis alluded to this additional objective during the meeting last week, which I and others at Comcast was unable to attend because of conflicting meetings.

The currently proposed objectives regarding capacity for NG-EPON are as follows:

• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 25 Gb/s in downstream and at least 25 Gb/s upstream
• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the asymmetric data rate of at least 25 Gb/s in downstream and at least 10 Gb/s upstream
• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 40 Gb/s in downstream and at least 40 Gb/s upstream
• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 40 Gb/s in downstream and at least 10 Gb/s upstream

At Comcast we believe that we should develop an NG-EPON standard that is scalable beyond 25 or 40 Gbps. The process for developing an EPON standard takes quite some time, because of which we believe we need to look beyond 5 years as we develop the standard. 

Many of us MSOs have been providing broadband services for almost 20 years now, and have always observed a usage growth and a service offering growth of 50% year over year, requiring a doubling of the network capacity every other year. Comcast is now deploying 10G EPON and offering 2 Gbps service now (this is a statement of fact, not conjecture), and therefore we recognize that we will need to grow the network capacity beyond 50G in around 4-5 years and offer peak speeds beyond 10G within the same timeframe. 

We believe that we need a standard that will incorporate bonding of Nx25G channels (or Nx40G channels if 40G is economically feasible). This does not mean that the first product needs to support Nx wavelengths. Quite the contrary, the first product, which we believe will be available by around the 2017 timeframe, needs only support 25G. But, by 2019 we need 2x25G bonded, by 2022 we need 4x25G bonded, and by 2024 we need beyond that rate. 

Therefore, we propose that the goals for NG-EPON include:

• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 25 Gb/s in downstream and at least 25 Gb/s upstream
• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the asymmetric data rate of at least 25 Gb/s in downstream and at least 10 Gb/s upstream
• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 40 Gb/s in downstream and at least 40 Gb/s upstream
• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 40 Gb/s in downstream and at least 10 Gb/s upstream
• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at a symmetric data rate that is a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s downstream and a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s upstream
• An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at a symmetric data rate that is a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s downstream and at least 10 Gb/s upstream

 

An important note is that we believe the above goals are in line with the role of the Study Group as these do not outline HOW to achieve the goals. Instead the goals just state WHAT to target in terms of speeds. So, while I state above that we need to strive for a standard that implements bonding, the goals don’t state that. 

We also suggest to scratch the goal for 40 Gbps because this goal is covered by the “at least 25 Gbps” single speed/wavelength objective and by the addition of the new multi lane requirements.

Thanks!

Jorge

From: Curtis Knittle <C.Knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:52 PM
To: Next Gen EPON Majordomo List <ng-epon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, STDS-802-3-NGEPON <STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Marek Hajduczenia <Marek.Hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Pondillo, Peter L'" <PondilloPL@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Oakley <Phil.Oakley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Rick Li' <Rick.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Emmendorfer, Mike'" <Mike.Emmendorfer@xxxxxxxxx>, Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Ten, Sergey Y'" <TenS@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ryan Hirth <rhirth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Mallette, Edwin J.'" <Edwin.Mallette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Ulm, John'" <John.Ulm@xxxxxxxxx>, "'barry.colella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <barry.colella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Chow, Bruce C'" <ChowBC@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Hesham ElBakoury <Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Laubach <laubach@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'William Bliss' <willblis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Donna Yasay' <dyasay@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Harstead Edward E (Ed)" <ed.harstead@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kevin Noll <kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Glen Kramer <gkramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Tucker, Ryan R'" <Ryan.Tucker@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Matt Petersen <matt.petersen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Francois Menard' <fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Powell <bill.powell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Shankar Hariharan (shhariha)'" <shhariha@xxxxxxxxx>, "'hanhyub@xxxxxxxxxx'" <hanhyub@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'zzhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <zzhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Miguelez <Phil_Miguelez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Douglas Jones <Douglas_Jones3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Peters, Michael'" <MPeters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'tago@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tago@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jorge Salinger <jorge_salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'chung@xxxxxxxxxx'" <chung@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bourg, Kevin'" <Kevin.Bourg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Grotzke, Andrew" <Andy.Grotzke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'derek.cassidy@xxxxxx'" <derek.cassidy@xxxxxx>, "'Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx'" <Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: NG-EPON Study Group Weekly meeting notes

Folks,

 

Please let me know if I need to add or revise any of the notes below.

 

Curtis

 

 

08/20/2015

IEEE 802.3 NG-EPON Study Group Work Items and Socialization

Meeting Start: 11:30

Meeting End: 12:30

• Review of Guidelines for IEEE-SA meetings.

• https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/preparslides.pdf
• Has anyone not seen these Guidelines? Everyone has seen the guidelines

• Email reflector

• After today (8/20/15) email reflector will be IEEE reflector:

• STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

• If you were previously on ng-epon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, please go here to subscribe to IEEE reflector:

• http://www.ieee802.org/3/NGEPONSG/reflector.html

• Call for Contributions

• First Study Group meeting is:

• September 14-15, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm

• Contribution deadline: September 4, 2015 AOE
• Send initial PDF and indicate amount of time desiredto c.knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

• Study Group Objectives

• General comments:

• Bill – would like to get to task force by November – would like to avoid getting bogged down with extra objectives
• Glen – We need to analyze every comment to make sure it answers “what” and not “how” – CFI is for “why,” Study Group is for “what,” Task Force is for “how.” Perfectly fine to say we want to achieve a certain bit rate, but not fine to say how it is achieved.

• Offline feedback:

• Duane (via email): I would like to note that I have concerns regarding the 40Gbps objective wording
• Jorge (via email): we have comments/suggestions along the lines of suggesting a more specific objective for N x base-PMD

• Alan – Objective 802.3av listed a PHY and a bit rate
• See changes to R05 of the objectives here:

• https://owncloud.cablelabs.com/public.php?service=files&t=4951cd9a35045bade1c1b0729eecaac0

• Regarding weekly meetings and finishing objectives and CSD and PAR

• Curtis to check on IEEE processes. Is there a pre-submission requirement? Can we make decisions early in plenary, and then present at closing plenary?
• Can we vote during the weekly meetings?

 

Table 1: Attendees

Name	Employer/Affiliation
Curtis Knittle	CableLabs
Alan Brown	CommScope
Bill Powell	ALU
Bruce Chow	Corning
Barry Colella	Source Photonics
Ed Harstead	ALU
Fernando Villarruel	Cisco
Glen Kramer	Broadcom
Hesham ElBakoury	Huawei
Marek Hajduczenia	Bright House Networks
Mark Laubach	Broadcom
Michael Peters	Sumitomo
Mike Emmendorfer	Arris
Ryan Tucker	Charter
Francois Menard	Aeponyx
Derrick Cassidy	BT
Ryan Hirth	Broadcom