RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
Roy,
You are right that both enterprise and campus networks (which are LANs) are
out of scope of this TF.
I however, want to clarify in what context they were mentioned on the
reflector.
EFM is charged with defining "access network". But when we talk about
functional requirements of access networks, we realize that different
applications have different requirements.
a. Residential access network - not much traffic from user to user (ONU to
ONU), but downstream broadcasting is important (video broadcasting). And
thus it was stated that a combination of point-to-point and shared emulation
(P2P+SE) makes sense.
b. Business access network (what sometimes referred to as enterprise access
network) - no downstream broadcasting video is needed, and so downstream
broadcasting is not important. Also not much traffic between ONUs. This is
the case for P2P emulation only.
c. Campus access network - the difference from business access is that all
tailend nodes belong to the same administrative domain. There can be a fair
amount of out-bound traffic as well as ONU-to-ONU traffic. There is a fair
number of lowtech campuses that don't have or don't want to have their own
IT department to maintain a campus network. This is a good place for P2MP
network with a shared emulation. It is still an access network, but better
optimized for ONU-to-ONU traffic.
It is not up to the standard to decide in what environment the access
network is to be used. But, standard can allow multitude of configurations
(as it does for LANs) that each vendor will make decision on.
Glen
> 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
>