RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
Chen,
By my understanding of a service provider viewpoint, scenario "c" is an
"enterprise" deployment, not a business or commercial access deployed
"subscription network". If a "customer" is in a common domain, then that
common domain belongs to the "customer" not the service provider. It is a
"star" topology within the "customer's" enterprise network, and not part of
the subscription network. There is a serrvice and management demarcation
between the "customer's" "common domain" and the service provider
subscription network. If the "customer" wants to put in a "firewall" of
some sort at the demarcation, then it is up to the "customer".
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 08:53 AM 11/29/2001 +0200, Chen Genosar wrote:
>Roy,
>
> In many cases the campus environment is very important as an access
>environment.
> E.g. Universities, Army, city offices in a city carrier environment ...
>
> In those scenarios the network is difference from business access since it
>has to deal with
> different kind of application, QoS and security issues.
> e.g. In an enterprise environment the inside traffic security is less
>important than in a campus environment.
>
> Thus I think situation "c" is important and it has different demands than
>an enterprise environment.
>
>Best Regards
>Chen Genossar
>Optical Access
>phone: +972-4-9936290
>fax: +972-4-9892743
>mobile: +972-54-936290
>cgenossar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>www.OpticalAccess.com
>
>
>
>-----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: Thursday, November 29, 2001 7:04 AM
>To: glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx; millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
>
>
>
>Glen,
>
>Service providers bring the customers' traffic back to an access point that
>becomes the revenue generation point that creates the billable
>revenue. Having been with a service provider for over 10 years, I have
>never seen service deployment that you described in situation
>"c". Situation "c" is more of an "enterprise" type of deployment not a
>"commercial" one. I believe that situation "c" is out of scope of this TF.
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>
>At 12:06 PM 11/26/2001 -0800, glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> >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
> > >