RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Pat,
I believe there is a misconception we are locked in regarding P2P networks.
The thread so far shows a concentration factor of 1:3 (32x1G in, 10G out).
This is a very hefty number that does not scale well in medium to large
deployments.
A neighborhood switch serving 1000 customers will have a 300G uplink! While
a typical CO with 10000 customers will have a 3T uplink. Backbones can't
handle so much traffic, especially when it is not necessary. A large POP
will have a 10G uplink, and 40G in the far future, this is a concentration
factor of 1:1000.
I believe Bob Lund showed that a network without concentration can not
exist, and furthermore, it is most efficient to concentrate the traffic at
the lowest tier of the access network, especially in terms of equipment
costs.
Although we have the technology to provide 10G at the egress of a single
port in a switch, that switch is part of a network that concentrates traffic
before leaving the node. Overall it is a tremendous effort to provide the
maximal burstable traffic rate to a single subscriber. Hence, although
theoretically EPONs provide lower bandwidths due to sharing of the medium,
there is no difference what so ever in practice between P2P and EPON
networks.
This is especially true when thinking of upgrades to 10G rates as per
Jonathan Thatcher's suggestion.
Ariel Maislos
Passave Networks
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kelly, Pat
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 8:10 AM
To: Jonathan Thatcher; 'mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx';
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Absolutely. The MAN connection for both PON and P2P should eventually move
to 10G. All in all, PON and P2P equipment should look very similar at the
provider, the tradeoff being max bandwidth vs. number of end units served.
That is, until 100G is ready. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N. Patrick Kelly
Director of Engineering
Networking Components Division
Intel Corporation
(916)854-2955
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Thatcher [mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 4:06 PM
To: 'Kelly, Pat'; 'mike.obrien@alloptic.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: 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=-
> >
>