RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON
The key point that Philip makes is:
If fiber is to be installed better to put more in the
ground then less.
The expensive parts are the dig and the right of way.
Next key point:
The business case is radically different if the service provider is renting
the fiber compared to owning it. If the same company owns and operates the
fiber then there is a dependency on the internal bandwidth market within
that company (and that's a funny money situation).
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Philip Yim
> Sent: 09 June 2001 02:48
> To: 'Francois D. Menard'; mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON
>
>
>
>
> Francois some very good points. As I understand it:
>
> PON is a technology solution best suited to fiber lean routes and the
> reduction of OSP active electronics. Since PON is inherently a PTMP
> deployment schema you need exotic bandwidth management schemes (which you
> pay for at the end points)
>
> In a PTP systems with a Bandwidth Management Head End system providing the
> aggregation offers the best solutions for control and bandwidth rate
> delivery to the user. If fiber is to be installed better to put
> more in the
> ground then less.
>
> Philip
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois D. Menard [mailto:f.menard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:13 PM
> To: mike.obrien@alloptic.com; 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@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=-
> >