| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Glen: I agree that rushed standard does not benefit to the industry in general. To go further, in you slid 3, "rushed standard deployment" not= ...., I'll argue that "rushed standard" may NOT even get into the deployment...
The usefulness of "flexible and extensible" future of the 100G EPON as discussed, actually depends splitting ratio. High splitting ratio is needed to make the flexible and extensible structure useful. However, the splitting ratio was not specified in the EPON family for historical reason. For the power budget discussed, the splitting ratio for 20km reach may be 16 to at most 32. Take 16 for example, a 100G system may ultimately expends to, for example, eight 25G ONU, four 50G ONU and four 100G ONU. Without the ability to scale to higher splitting ratio, one can not really benefit form the "flexible and extensible" part of the 100G EPON.
May be from 100G EPON going forward, we need to specify different types of ODN at IEEE.
Regards, Eugene From: Glen Kramer <glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 2:04 PM To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] 802.3ca (100G-EPON) bi-weekly consensus - call for agenda items Curtis,
I'd like to discuss the general architecture approach. We had a number of presentations in Dallas leading towards this approach, but since the Dallas meeting was per-TF, we didn't make any formal decisions. In Atlanta, we started looking into various low-level
details, but the big picture is left undefined. My slides are attached. All feedback is welcome.
Thanks,
Glen
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Curtis Knittle
<C.Knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--------------------------------------
Glen Kramer
Broadband Technology Group
(707)529-0917
|