RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope
Matt / Gerry / Roy / Howard
I think you all hit the nail on the head - economic justification in the
context of the five criteria.
Today 100M is cost competitive with 1GE, but in two years time chances are
the situation will be reversed.
If 802 was going to standardise 100M p2p single mode the process should have
started two years ago.
I would have no problem omitting 100M single mode on the grounds of the
economic argument, given the time line to produce a standard for it. Also I
think most people accept that civil engineering is the highest part of the
cost, followed by operational maintenance costs over the life of the service
(transport), then the fiber cost, then finally the equipment cost.
Doesn't stop a few companies making a 'nice wedge' out of 100M for the next
two years.
Check the cockney rhyming slang web site for 'nice wedge' if necessary ;-).
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Matt Squire
> Sent: 26 November 2001 19:04
> To: rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope
>
>
>
> I think these are some of the questions that will be addressed by those
> folks supporting 100M at the next meeting, where the expectation is that
> there will be a justification of the 5 criteria to show technical and
> economic justification among other things. As Ulf was still soliciting
> supporters just last week, I doubt that the presentation is ready just
> yet.
> I don't think its required to show the differences in equipment types,
> but rather justification for the development of new PHYs - what
> equipment things go in is a little outside the scope of the IEEE, and
> requiring different equipment isn't always seen as the best thing.
>
> Technical justification for a new 100M PHY is easy - its the same as the
> 1G case - extended temperature, distance objectives, single mode, etc.
> Look at the 1G solution and replace 1000M with 100M. I think the only
> question in peoples minds is the economic justification of 100M versus
> 1G solutions. I'd like to give the 100M supporters a chance to develop
> this aspect of the proposal, and I'm sure we'll all have a chance to
> look at it by January.
>
> - Matt
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:23 PM
> > To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; howard Frazier
> > Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > Subject: 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
> > > >
>
> --
>
> Matt Squire
> Hatteras Networks
> mattsquire@xxxxxxx, msquire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx