Re: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON
Gerry and all,
I think Francois touched a point that we
will have to deal with for many months to come.
But, I also think it's more a perception
problem, than a real PON/P2P differentiator.
A PON CPE cannot be physically
disconnected from the network, and a P2P CPE can - you simply shut down the
corresponding port at the CO. So CPEs play a significant role in PON domain
availability, while the corresponding functionality in P2P systems reside at the
CO. Therefore, Francois and others conclude that PON CPEs will have to be of
higher reliability grade than P2P CPEs, thus hindering open access, raising
costs, etc.
But: (1) this is only relevant to the
reliability of the CPE transmission circuit (implementation of an automatic
laser shutdown function), and not to general MTBF of the unit, and (2) service
providers might require that all optical transmitters (including
Class 1) have ALS functionality.
So, to summarize, there certainly is an
issue here, but as far as differentiation of PON-P2P is concerned, I don't
believe the extended ALS implementation needed for PON CPE will significantly
impact costs. Furthermore, a P2P vendor that wants to sell to carriers,
will probably find himself implementing some basic form of ALS
anyway.
Regards,
Victor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 3:47
AM
Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v
EPON
>
>
> Salut
Francois,
>
> > PON would require that the carrier
control
> > and restrict the nature of the terminals being
>
> connected to the network,
> > just like its happening with cable
modems today.
>
> Can you summarize/clarify this - so I don't have
to read the ~60 reports
> referenced;) How would a PON Modem differ
from a DSL Modem or Cable Modem,
> as far as the Carrier "control" of the
terminal box is concerned? For
> example, for me to get ADSL, SBC
requires me to use their Alcatel DSL modem.
> Most local carriers I can
think of (Cable, DSL, etc) currently
> restrict/control the set-top box,
xDSL modem, etc. It sounds like you have
> lots of experience here,
and I'd like to hear the issues.
>
>
______________________________________________
>
> Gerry
Pesavento
> gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Office 925-245-7647
> Cell
530-219-1954
> ________________________________________________
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
Francois D. Menard [mailto:f.menard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:13
PM
> To: mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON
>
>
>
> Pure PON is problematic in many more ways that aggregation,
namely CPE
> equipment choice for end-users. PON would require that
the carrier control
> and restrict the nature of the terminals being
connected to the network,
> just like its happening with cable modems
today. Check out
> http://www.crtc.gc.ca/cisc/eng/cisf3g8b.htm for all the contributions on
> compatibility
testing ;)
>
> -=Francois=-
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: June 8, 2001 8:07 PM
> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
> Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my
argument, but I stand by it.
> Even P2P GigE with 10GE uplinks would
require aggregation in any practical
> access network
implementation. And even if you could do 1:1 aggregation
> ratio but that
would just push the aggregation point further upstream. If
> you were to
implement the 1:1 aggregation ration all the way between
> endpoints the
system would essentially reduce back to the TDM network. I
> will concede
that PON does limit tuning flexibility aggregation ratio, and
> in cases
where this is important P2P will win. But in most cases it will not
> be
an issue.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Bob Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
> Dear Mike
>
> I
think there is a fundamental floor in the logic here. The aggregation
>
ratio (at the CO or POP box) is an implementation specific parameter,
and
> can be tuneable via management from 1:1 (no grading), down to
whatever is
> required. It depends on what the implementer is capable of
implementing, and
> what the customer requirements turn out to be.
>
> Bob Barrett
> bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 08 June 2001 21:18
> 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@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: [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@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: [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=-
> >