| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Glen,
As for counting channels, what you say is true of the OLT, but is not correct for the ONU.
Since the ONU optic is the most cost sensitive, you can see where that argument goes downhill fast.
It seems to me that the sharing of channels between generations is a major choice here.
The 1G and 10G EPON systems share an upstream channel, and this leads you to some tough bandwidth tradeoffs in a mixed system.
Your slide 8 shows that the allocation target for 100G EPON is only 57G, and 25G is only 14G. It seems kind of a false promise.
To put it another way, in any of the systems with higher channel counts, those extra channels give you extra capacity. So, it’s not just wasted money.
To be clear – I’m not coming down one way or another on this question. All I’m saying is that the analysis needs to take more into consideration, and in a
holistic fashion. Sincerely, Frank E. From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Frank, For my presentation, it is irrelevant whether all wavelengths have the same width or not, whether they are allocated next to each other in the same band or in completely different regions/bands. Maybe "wavelength" was not the best term
to use. Think of it as a channel that can carry a bit stream from one end of the PON to another.
My argument is that we don't want every new generation to require separate channels. Doing so will require 7 channels to support all 3 generations. We should be able to support all 3 generations with 4 channels. Glen On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:36 PM, frank effenberger <frank.effenberger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Glen and all,
I would caution against thinking that “wavelengths” are like a commodity. Unlike people, not all
wavelengths are created equal, I’m afraid to say. Moreover, we don’t allocate individual wavelengths, but actually wavelength bands, with width of
which has a huge effect on cost of components. This is what the presentations at the last meeting from Ed and I were getting at.
The worst thing is that we are not starting from a clean slate – there is a lot of legacy there,
and also other optics defined in the market that could be reused. All in all, it is a very complex decision to make, and you can’t simplify it to “Keep the number
of wavelengths to a minimum”. Other than that, your basic ideas of the fully flexible kind of system I generally agree with. Indeed,
my preso in Dallas suggested many of these same features. They are a nice ‘wish list’ at this point. The killer question is: can we achieve all of them?
It’s not so clear to me now. Sincerely,
Frank E. From: Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
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: Dear Colleagues,
This coming Thursday, February 18, 11:30-1:00 Mountain Time, we will hold an IEEE 802.3ca 100G-EPON consensus building meeting. Please let me know by Wednesday noon (Mountain Time)
whether you have requests for agenda time. If I do not receive agenda requests by noon Wednesday, I will cancel the meeting. Thank you! Curtis Curtis Knittle VP Wired Technologies – R&D CableLabs desk:
+1-303-661-3851 mobile:
+1-303-589-6869 Stay up to date with CableLabs: Read the blog and
follow us on Twitter
--
-- -------------------------------------- Glen Kramer Broadband Technology Group (707)529-0917 |