RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
For my two pennyworth I would assume that fiber deployment is simpler and
lower cost in a campus environment and therefore the degenerate case of p2p
(using EPON nodes or p2p nodes) will solve this problem. So I agree with
both arguments. Campus is important, but it falls out of the degenerate p2p
case because distances are short and fiber cost does not dominate the
business case. It can always be added as an addendum, but lets get the base
standard out first. p2p is how it is being solved today with 100M so we are
not holding anything up.
Corporate customers get very nervous about having their traffic on fiber
that goes to their neighbour, even if they encrypt their data.
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Chen
> Genosar
> Sent: 29 November 2001 06:54
> To: 'Roy Bynum'; glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx; millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
>
>
>
> 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
> > >
>