Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements
Sukanta,
I agree with your response to Ramu. You've interpreted the intent of my
response to Vladimir's note accurately.
I agree that active architectures in the field are undesirable, but I
don't see anyway around unless the fiber can go all the way, and that is
very expensive deployment for the masses.
By scalability I mean that PtP fiber can be scaled up in bandwidth as
new Ethernet PtP technology becomes available. The scalability is in the
9.5 mile fiber segment, not the first/last 0.5 mile copper segment. As
an example, consider the cost/performance goals of PtP Ethernet as they
apply to the current 4 generations of product:
- At product introduction/new technology availability, the cost of the
next generations Ethernet is roughly 20X for 10X bandwidth;
- At product maturity (~1M units/year), the cost drops to 3.5X for 10X
bandwidth. Ballpark time frame is introduction + 3 years;
- At widespread deployment, the cost drops to below 2.5x for 10x
bandwidth. Ballpark time frame is maturity + years;
Therefore, as new users subscribe, the same PtP fiber plant can be very
cost effectively utilized by upgrading the active equipment. The value
proposition for PtP for EFM is that the technology required will likely
be in the widespread deployment phase whereas the equivalent PON
technology may be in the new technology stage. My calculations show a
~10X cost penalty for equivalent bandwidth support by PON over PtP. Note
that the bandwidth/cost numbers for FTTH deployment in Japan bear this
out:
"It is well published in Japan.
100Mbps service is using P2P single fiber.
10Mbps service is using P2MP PON."
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Sukanta ganguly wrote:
>
> Ramu,
> A all Fiber architecture will be simpler in the
> overall aspect but would be a extremely expensive
> deployment. So wo should have some sort of E/O deliver
> in the last/first half mile.
>
> Rich, Vladimir,
> An active architecture within the field isn general
> is not a good idea, but actual scenario may digress
> from generality. Some switching is required, no doubt.
> I haven't read any deeper discussion on the switching
> complexity (Maybe I missed some of the discussions in
> the past.) I also did not understand the assumption of
> the last/first 0.5 mile being more scalable than PON.
> What kind of scalability is required at the last/first
> mile. If you are talking about 1000baseX being
> distributed to the real consumer or to then the amount
> of bandwidth that is to be switched is fairly small
> (i.e. in comparison to the 10G portion). The switching
> components as far as scaleability and complexity is
> concerned will be very different and hence, atleast
> from my point of view is a very different discussion.
> I think, and you folks may help me understand it
> better, it is not a good idea to come up with a
> generic one switching logic which can be applied to
> 100base-X/1000base-X and 10G network.
> I would be extremely interested in discussing the
> active component network on different scale of
> operation as opposed to a PON as far as cost/ease of
> deployment and maintainence, complexity etc is
> concerned.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Thanx
> SG
> (Sukanta Ganguly, An independent view)
>
> --- ramu <ramu_raskan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Rich, not sure I understand the logic behind some of
> > your points, but the simple answer appears to be
> > that it requires new trenching for the new copper
> > drops, which will never fly. If I misunderstand,
> > please elaborate.
> >
> > I don't quite get you conclusion: 'since E/O is
> > required, 1KBaseX is significantly more cost
> > effective, scalable, and simpler than PON.'
> >
> > If E/O is required in the field it can't be PON.
> > Whether it is significantly more cost effective
> > cannot be judged without detailed designs of each.
> > Whether it is more scalable I guess depends on your
> > definition. Simpler is hard to imagine, but again
> > may depend on definition. If you could elaborate
> > your view I would be interested.
> >
> > Since you are suggesting an active architecture with
> > new electronics in the field, I for one would
> > welcome a discussion of such a network architecture
> > that had fiber for the last thousand feet. No one
> > has addressed that at all to my recollection. None
> > of the architectues is perfect in all respects so an
> > all-fiber active architecture undoubtedly has some
> > advantages.
> >
> >
> ==================================================================
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > It would seem that the most cost effective approach
> > for a 10 mile EFM
> > solution would be to use standard point-to-point
> > 1000BASE-X or 10GBASE-X
> > for the first 9.5 miles and then a 0.5 mile copper
> > tail for the
> > first/last half mile. Since E/O conversion is
> > required at the 9.5 mile
> > mark, standard 1000BASE-X or 10GBASE-X technology
> > would be significantly
> > more cost effective, scalable and simpler that PON
> > at that point. I
> > expect that there will be switching equipment
> > located at the upstream
> > (10 miles away) side, negating any benefit of a PON
> > split at that point.
> >
> > Please tell me what's wrong with this picture?
> >
> > P.S. I understand that this does not address the
> > rural market portrayed
> > by Frank Miller in this thread, but neither does
> > PON.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taborek Sr. Intel Corporation
XAUI Sherpa Intel Communications Group
3101 Jay Street, Suite 110 Optical Products Group
Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara Design Center
408-496-3423 JAY1-101
Cell: 408-832-3957 mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
Fax: 408-486-9783 http://www.intel.com