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
_________________________