Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P




Pat,

10 Gig would be an upgrade path in both cases, right?  :-)

jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly, Pat [mailto:pat.kelly@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 3:24 PM
> To: 'mike.obrien@alloptic.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming GE switches with 10GE uplinks will be available 
> once 802.3ae's
> work is complete.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> N. Patrick Kelly
> Director of Engineering
> Networking Components Division
> Intel Corporation
> (916)854-2955
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent:	Friday, June 08, 2001 1:18 PM
> To:	stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject:	RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
> 
> 
> Pat,
> 	P2P may offer higher bandwidth from the subscriber to 
> the CO than
> PON, however it must perform some aggregation to it's 
> upstream provider. A
> P2P box with 32 1000Mbps subscriber links will not have 32 x 
> 1000Mbps of
> upstream links. PON does the 'aggregation' at the splitting 
> point. Overall,
> the PON subscriber will see essentialy the same bandwidth as 
> P2P subscriber.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly, Pat [mailto:pat.kelly@xxxxxxxxx]
> 
> Bob,
> 
> Sorry if I'm missing something.  I understand that PON 
> systems can burst to
> higher rates, but a 32 subscriber, one wavelength/direction 
> PON should only
> be able to provide 1000Mbps/32 or ~30Meg/subscriber (assuming 100%
> efficiency).  This is much closer to VDSL than P2P at 
> 1000Mbps/subscriber.
> 
> Of course, PON has significant advantages over VDSL (higher 
> aggregate data
> rate, upgradeability, video broadcast capability, etc.), so 
> it should be a
> very compelling comparison.
> 
> Pat
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> N. Patrick Kelly
> Director of Engineering
> Networking Components Division
> Intel Corporation
> (916)854-2955
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Lund, Bob [mailto:blund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent:	Friday, June 08, 2001 11:29 AM
> To:	'Kelly, Pat'; 'Francois D. Menard'; 
> gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> CarlisleRS@corning.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Cc:	DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx; CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:	RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
> 
> I don't think PON and VDSL provide similar levels of bandwidth.
> 
> Commercial VDSL systems feed curbside nodes with 155 - 622Mbps and
> distribute asymetric bandwidth with a max of around 25Mbps per set of
> twisted pair wires. Nodes typically serve around 30 
> subscribers. I've not
> seen any developments that suggest that the 25Mbps max will go up
> substantially.
> 
> Commercial PON systems provide 155 - 1000Mbps to a passive 
> optical splitter
> that, in turn, feeds up to 32 subscribers, each with 155 - 1000Mbps of
> bandwidth. Bandwidth management protocols enable service providers to
> control how much of the aggregate PON bandwidth is used by 
> any subscriber.
> PONs also provide greater upstream bandwidth than VDSL 
> systems. PONs can
> employ higher clock rate optics and/or CWDM to increase the amount of
> bandwidth to higher rates, e.g. 4 wavelengths would provide 4x the
> bandwidth.
> 
> Bob Lund
> Chief Technical Officer
> Optical Solutions Inc.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Kelly, Pat [SMTP:pat.kelly@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent:	Friday, June 08, 2001 12:13 PM
> > To:	'Francois D. Menard'; gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > CarlisleRS@corning.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > Cc:	DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx; CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject:	[EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
> > 
> > 
> > PON vs. VDSL seems to be a more logical comparison than P2P vs. VDSL
> > because
> > PON and VDSL provide similar levels of service, i.e. bandwidth.
> > 
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > N. Patrick Kelly
> > Director of Engineering
> > Networking Components Division
> > Intel Corporation
> > (916)854-2955
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: 	Francois D. Menard [mailto:f.menard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> > Sent:	Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:40 AM
> > To:	gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx; CarlisleRS@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > Cc:	DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx; CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject:	RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
> > 
> > 
> > > As you can see from the graph, the PTP vs PTMP costs are 
> sensitive to
> > distance - SBC calculated PTMP is close to the same at 
> short distance, and
> > 50% the cost at >5 km.  I'd like to know more about what is 
> behind SBC's
> > data (if it includes equipment costs, I think so). I 
> noticed that neither
> > you nor Martin Adams mentioned distance; an important variable.
> > 
> > I would like to know to which extent, cost of P2P has been 
> found to be
> > more
> > extensive, considering that active equipments could be 
> installed in the
> > same
> > manner than for VDSL in the street-end cabinets.  I believe 
> that OCCAM is
> > doing this for xDSL. Aggregating residential P2P on giant 
> fibre bundles
> > may
> > work in Japan due to house densities, but it is more complex in
> > North-America, however still remains a serious possibility.  I would
> > rather
> > see P2P compared to VDSL before P2P is compared to PON.
> > 
> > Fundamentally, PON will be subject to the same myriad of 
> problems that
> > open
> > access on cable modem plant is subjected to today, which 
> are high-cost
> > terminals, which can potentially screw up your neighbor's 
> service were
> > they
> > going to become defective.  This has important implications on
> > architecture
> > and policy for third party access.  Suffice it to say that 
> such problems
> > are
> > easily solved in P2P, and that I do not believe at all in 
> comparing costs,
> > while forgetting about estimating the costs of implementing 
> third party
> > access.
> > 
> > -=Francois=-
> > 
>