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

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 -----
From: <gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <f.menard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
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=-
> >