Frank,
Because an ATM/Ethernet/TDM PON framework does not
fit in the scope
of 802.3ah, I see no reason for you to try to disrupt the work being done.
> free from the 'scope police,' who work to shut down discussion on important issues in
> their unbridled
quest for a quick and very dirty
standard.
These "scope police" are the ones who have kept
Ethernet what it is;
the most successful, widely deployed network in
history.
I know of no one in 802.3ah working on a "quick and dirty standard".
> but the world does not revolve around
Alloptic.
Frank, please don't ever question my integrity.
_________________________
Gerry Pesavento
gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Tel 530.757.6250 (Davis, CA)
Cell 530.219.1954 _________________________
Gerry and All,
Let
me make one thing clear - time to market is not the ultimate motive of
standards.
(It
may be important to you, but the world does not revolve around AllOptic.)
The
IEEE 802.x family of standards establishes a framework that encompasses many
different data networking systems. If we follow
the model that you are recommending,
then
all the 802.x standards should be merged into 802.3. Why not? It
would be faster,
easier, less organizational overhead, leverage the
Ethernet 'brand', etc.
I
trust that everybody can see that this is ridiculous.
The
reason for structure is to help guide the development of rational standards
that
have some integrity of purpose and
architecture. By trying to force-fit the
Ethernet MAC over the PON physical medium, you
and your bretheren are going
to
have to compromise away a large amount of functionallity.
You are also going
to
disregard many network operator requirements. This is going
to produce a
bad
standard.
You
have made statements many times to the effect of, "It can be made to
work".
I
don't doubt it. You can patch enough glue on top of the Ethernet MAC so
as to
make
it operate. But that is not how systems are supposed to be
designed.
Instead of straining after 802.3 compliance, we
should bite the bullet and branch
off
into a MAC group. That is the only way that P2MP will be able to do its
work
unconstrained, in an open environment, free from the
'scope police,' who work to
shut
down discussion on important issues in their unbridled quest for a quick
and
very dirty standard.
You
know, the flip side of this is that the PTP systems (copper and fiber) have
none
of
these problems. Those groups are well within the scope of 802.3, and I
wholeheartedly
support them remaining in 802.3ah. Those
efforts will be greatly slowed down by all
the
issues raised by P2MP. All the individuals who wish to
progress PTP systems
forward should think carefully about the
inclusion of P2MP within 802.3ah. Now that it
has
become clear that P2MP is a whole different level of complexity in comparison,
we
should seriously consider again the bifurication of P2MP into a new MAC
group.
Regards,
Frank Effenberger.
Walt,
> So perhaps a time saver
is to start a new 802.#(18?) where we
> don't need to spend time
justifying "minimum needed" augmentation.
> .... What do you and others
think?
I am opposed to this Walt. It was voted down
in the past. Please let me explain why.
(1) 802.3ah EFM PAR, 5
Criteria, Objectives
We have these in place, with one year of work, and
wide support. The mission is clear.
(2) Progress
I see continuous
progress in defining P2MP Ethernet that offers, per the PAR, a PHY and
minimal MAC augmentation. In the last meeting, it was reinforced that 802.3
has strict guidelines; I believe they can be followed without a sacrifice in
system performance, and I see encouraging progress toward this.
(2)
One EFM Management Platform
Local carriers will want to deploy, from a
single platform under one management system, P2P, P2MP or Copper, given the
particular geography. That is to say, many service providers that will
deploy "Ethernet Access Networks" want to mix P2P, EPON, Copper. If
you split, you lose this benefit.
(3)
One EFM Hardware Platform
The consolidation of P2P, P2MP, Copper is also
of benefit to EFM system vendors, who can offer systems, most elegantly,
with a single backplane and packet engine. I believe the traditional
Switch/Router companies follow this belief.
(4) De-focus
Danger
This is the big one. When the MAC, etc, is an open door, it
is much more difficult to find consensus on a solution. Tony mentioned
double the years to standard for a newly formed group; I believe that is
conservative.
802.x(18) EPON
scope: TDM, ATM, Analog Video, DBA, QoS, FEC, DWDM, Security,
Outside Plant, Numerous PMDs, newly defined OAM, .. oh, and
Ethernet.
802.3ah EPON scope: Ethernet for P2MP
fiber medium
I would guess that 802.x(18) would be a black hole, with
no end date - not a time saver as you suggest. We can meet the
timeline for P2MP Ethernet laid out by 802.3ah. We need to focus on our
802.3ah PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives. I am discouraged to hear continuous
push outside this defined envelope. Howard has built a vision
for EFM that ties a common management system around a compliment of Ethernet
in the First Mile solutions for carriers. I subscribe to that
vision.
_________________________
Gerry
Pesavento
gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Tel 530.757.6250 (Davis,
CA)
Cell
530.219.1954
_________________________