Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements
Bruce,
Nowhere in this thread did I mention FTTH. The structure of PON is such
that it is VERY expensive compared to PtP for the same bandwidth at the
head end. The widesperead deployment of 1000BASE-X and 10GBASE-X will
ensure that both technologies are VERY cost effective as EFM beckbone
technologies in the time frame they're needed for EFM. 1000BASE-X is
already a cost effective technology, even the LX version. The same will
be true for 10GBASE-LX. Think 3.5X 1000BASE-LX at maturity (2004/5). I'd
like to see PON match these figures.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Bruce Tolley wrote:
>
> Richard
>
> FTTH is going to live or die on cost. Whether we run P2P or PON the
> pedestal or curb and then copper into the house, the connectivity has to be
> low cost. We should definitely be talking about 1000 Mbps. With a an
> appropriate split ratio, even a PON can deliver sufficient bandwidth. 10
> GBASE is going to be VERY expensive for a long time.
>
> Bruce
>
> At 12:59 PM 8/19/01 -0700, Rich Taborek wrote:
>
> >Ramu,
> >
> >It seems we have a major misunderstanding. I'm not advocating any new
> >copper drops. I believe that Vladimir's note, which I responded to, was
> >not advocating new copper drops for the first/last 0.5 mile as well.
> >This is what Vladimir referred to as the "copper tail". The copper tail
> >connects to the residence/business on one end and fiber on the other.
> >
> >The ONLY issue my response addressed was whether the fiber architecture
> >0.5 miles away from the residence/business was PtP or PON. It is at the
> >copper/fiber juncture that E/O conversion is obviously required. I
> >further assume that the bandwidth requirements at this 0.5 mile central
> >point are such that high bandwidth technologies such as 1000BASE-X or
> >even 10GBASE-X make more sense than PON.
> >
> >I do like the idea of FTTH, but I'm being practical and noting that if
> >the fiber gets to 0.5 miles of the home that high enough bandwidths can
> >be achieved.
> >
> >By "more scalable" I mean that a PtP fiber architecture is more scalable
> >than PON. I note that one can deploy existing cost effective technology
> >such as PtP 1000BASE-X and achieve 1 Gbps throughput. I expect that the
> >relative cost of achieving the same throughput with PON would run two
> >orders or magnitude or so more.
> >
> >I hope this helps.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >Rich
> >
> >--
> >ramu 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