RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
Bob,
What are the differences in equipment types that would be in place for the
deployment that you describe that do not currently exist. What would be
the cost differential to the customer between an optical 100Mb vs. 1000Mb
service from the active system in the building co-location space? What is
the service model for this deployment?
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 05:06 PM 11/26/2001 +0000, Bob Barrett wrote:
>Roy, Howard et al,
>
>I am reading the 100M track as referring to dedicated full duplex 100M
>optical links to a customer site from a POP, where there is an _active_
>device (either a layer two switch or a router), owned by the service
>provider. This is a common topology in Europe.
>
>I think 'campus' refers to a Business Park environment and 'Enterprise'
>refers to enterprise customer in this context.
>
>The 100M full duplex over single mode is a definite S.P. requirements in
>Europe, if not the US, and with IEEE now being the home of international
>standards I think the 100M requirement in the first mile is definitely
>within scope.
>
>To many Europeans this long-line at 1GE architecture, with active star 100M
>to the customer, supports a better business case than EPON. Our loops are
>shorter and our business campus environments more dense than many in the US.
>Most have some form of comms. room in which an SP can deploy kit, similar to
>the basement of an MTU.
>
>Please don't dismiss this 100M requirement from EFM just because it is not
>US centric. Our carriers are doing it already with 'non-standard' equipment
>because there isn't any 802.3 compliant carrier class equipment for 100M
>single mode.
>
>Best regards
>
>Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roy Bynum
> > Sent: 26 November 2001 14:45
> > To: howard Frazier
> > Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > Subject: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
> >
> >
> >
> > Howard,
> >
> > I am seeing several references to a "enterprise" type of "campus"
> > deployment as a target for P2MP optical services. I may be
> > mistaken, but I
> > thought that this TF was working on support of "subscription networks"
> > which, by my understanding, are commercial service access networks, not
> > enterprise networks. Am I mistaken? If I am not, then that
> > would make the
> > need to support enterprise campus networks somewhat out of scope.
> >
> > I hate to see a lot of effort put into trying to support campus networks
> > for ubiquitous shared access over optical media. From my experience,
> > ubiquitous shared networks have an effective utilization of about 30%,
> > depending on the number of nodes on the media. The support and
> > maintenance of that type of topology in the enterprise campus environment
> > would be very similar to the old "coax" system of years ago. At
> > the lower
> > utilization, an the high maintenance labor costs, the higher cost of the
> > optical media would not be cost effective. I don't see much of a market
> > for that type of deployment.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> >