RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Roy,
I think that I understand and sympathize with your requirement. However, I
am not sure that some of the things that I heard about P2M would allow
similar management schemes and can result into similar overhead as P2P.
Provisioning functions like security, multicast, or BW management - if they
become part of the standard - will lead to differences in the respective
control schemes at some level.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:00 PM
> To: Kelly, Pat; Jonathan Thatcher;
> 'mike.obrien@alloptic.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
>
>
>
> Pat,
>
> From a service provider standpoint, I would like to see the
> subscriber
> management overhead for both P2P and P2M be the same. That will give
> service providers the ability to engineer the installation
> without having
> to spare out or select different equipment for the different
> deployments.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
>
> At 11:09 PM 6/11/01 -0700, Kelly, Pat wrote:
>
> >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@xxxxxxxxxxxx';
> 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=-
> > > >
> > >
>