RE: [EFM] Split Ratios
It seems to me, split ratio should not be a gauging factor for
EPON standardization? We can easily that split ratio such as
1 to 16/32/128 ... would affect the bandwidth allocation scheme
and whatever the BAS we choose to use, should take multiple
split ratio (1/16, 1/32 ...) into consideration. We are pretty
much done. I think the issue here is more on how the BAS is
done to satisfy multiple split ratio requirements but not determine
one a single split ratio.
Your thoughts?
-faye
-----Original Message-----
From: "Prat Gomà, Josep J." [mailto:jprat@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 6:39 AM
To: ketan.gadkari@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] Split Ratios
Selecting the split ratio is an easy way to provission different
Guarantied
Bandwidths (125, 62, 31 MBit/s...) to the users. A more fine-degree of
split
ratio than the standard ones (8,16,..) may be of interest in this terms
(not
in the power budget). With a convenient fiber/cable management this can
also
be easily re-configured, then making DBA perhaps redundant at the PON?.
The concept of making use of the unsued bandwidth (above the guarantied
bandwith) could be differentiated from the traffic priorisation of DBA,
in
my personal opinion.
Josep
UPC
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ketan.gadkari@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ketan.gadkari@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Enviado el: 19 July 2001 22:13
Para: mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx; david.m.horne@xxxxxxxxx
CC: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Asunto: [EFM] Split Ratios
It is eaiser to manufacture a 1x8, 1x16, 1x32 etc because every split in
the
tree is an even split. (i.e. 50/50). If we had to make a 1x10, then
some
of the splits would have to be uneven i.e. 60/40 or 70/30. While this
is
possible and there are 1x10 and 1x12 splitters available they are non
standard.
Ketan Gadkari
Alloptic Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:24 AM
To: david.m.horne@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: EPON TDMA
Hi David,
The split ratio's are powers of two because the splitters are
made
by cascading 1x2 (actually 2x2) splitters.
-----Original Message-----
From: Horne, David M [mailto:david.m.horne@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:03 PM
To: 'Roy Bynum'; glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: EPON TDMA
Where did the often-cited split ratios of 16 and 32 come from, anyway?
It
seems an argument can be made for holding off on finalizing the split
ratio
choice until the TDMA scheme is better defined and quantified. That way,
it
can be better matched (disaggregated and reaggregated) to Ethernet pipes
on
the ends of the EFM segment, and be easier to hand off to multiple
service
providers in a PoP. End-to-end Ethernet is the goal, after all.
For example, a split ratio of 8 may be a better match for 100Mbps
dedicated
(logical) connections, once the actual TDMA overhead and guard bands are
known. Compared to 16:1, the cost of the extra feeder fiber (cost of 2
fibers split across 16 subs rather than 1 fiber split across 16) may be
offset by the more compatible handoff logistics. For long drop fibers,
with
two 8:1's, the drops will be relatively shorter than a single 16-way
split
to the same endpoints. This may even offset the extra feeder fiber. But,
there's no reason to stick with powers of 8 (that I can think of off
hand)
unless they make something easier. Maybe 10 or 12 or... are attractive
after
more details are agreed to.