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

RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON




What is the de-marc point? Perhaps the assumption that
the PON Optical Networking Unit is a "CPE device"
should be re-examine. 

Nicolas Nguyen

--- "Francois D. Menard" <f.menard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> 
> 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@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]
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/