RE: [EFM] P2MP -> P2P migration path
Carlos,
I think that I am understanding what you are saying here. I would like to
change some of the wording/acronyms/semantics and see if I understand.
What you are looking for is a migration path from P2MP to a VIRTUAL P2P
(VP2P). This VP2P would use the P2MP infrastructure but provide a P2P
functionality. The intent would be for each VP2P (or each VP2MP) link to
utilize an independent wavelength.
The implication is that EFM would have to provide a wavelength and budget
plan that supported this upgrade path.
Is that it?
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Ribeiro [mailto:cribeiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:35 AM
> To: John Pickens; Dolors Sala
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [EFM] P2MP -> P2P migration path
>
>
>
> At 09:48 17/07/01 -0700, John Pickens wrote:
> >One school of thought is that EPON is just a simple
> transition technology
> >on the way toward PTP, so (upstream) efficiency is no
> >consideration. Heck, 10-20% of available link capacity would be
> >great. Heck, why not just divide up the bandwidth
> statically and give
> >each ONU 1/16th of the raw link bandwidth. It's a lot simpler that
> >way. Plus the EFM operator will just switchover to PTP
> anyway once the
> >traffic gets to a significant level.
> >
> >Another school of thought is that EPON is an enduring
> technology which (in
> >order to compete with other enduring shared technologies,
> e.g. copper and
> >vaporized-copper) must dynamically maximize the utilization
> of the link
> >bandwidth up to 100% utilization. Furthermore latency
> sensitive traffic
> >must be capable of seeing minimum latency (e.g. 0 ms for a
> constant bit
> >rate stream) on the uplink.
> >
> >So the question is which extreme model (or intermediate model) is
> >required. The model chosen will determine the functionality
> requirements
> >of the MAC/PHY.
>
> I could not have put it better. That's where my wavelength allocation
> request comes into play. As we don't know (as of now) which
> model is going
> to be the winner, I believe that we have to reserve space for the P2P
> migration path. A carefully designed wavelength allocation
> scheme may allow
> this discussion be be tackled later. For now, we can work out
> the P2MP EPON
> standard, knowing that we will have room for P2P in the future.
>
>
> Carlos Ribeiro
> CTBC Telecom
>
>