RE: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation
Roy,
I see your point. I figured that circuit emulation would be 99.999% hacker
proof, and that would be good enough, until I read Dan's email this morning.
The implication being that only 100% proof is acceptable. Side bands on p2p
links are the only answer to this from a packet 'cross-talk / sniff'
stand-point.
Some vendors are selling IP circuit emulation now. It would be interesting
to hear their comments, and any from SPs, deploying IP circuit emulation.
the only users that I know of are enterprise on private networks. I
acknowledge that this is getting off track for EFM. May be we should move
this stream to the MEF reflector?
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 11 December 2001 14:58
> To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-efm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation
>
>
> Bob,
>
> The real problem is not how to do the T1/E1 emulation over broadband
> Ethernet. The issue is what does the service provider do with
> the rest of
> the bandwidth that makes it economically realistic? In most
> cases they are
> looking to provide multiple services over that bandwidth. The question
> that pops up is what is the security of the T1/E1 emulation over that
> bandwidth when the service provider needs to put more than one
> customer in
> that bandwidth? Your suggestion of using a true "out of band" TDM "like"
> functionality would tend to be the simplest way to provide the accepted
> security of a T1/E1 type of service. Otherwise the T1/E1 emulation would
> be intermingled with multiple customers' traffic and require very complex
> security measures. I think that the paradigm of intermingled traffic is
> what is being seen in the concerns over security. Somehow we have to get
> out of that "all or nothing" type of thinking.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 02:33 PM 12/11/2001 +0000, Bob Barrett wrote:
> >Roy,
> >
> >I see this as full T1/E1 pipes primarily, used for voice traffic and
> >possibly RAS PRI. DSO granularity is unlikely to be required on
> fiber. The
> >full pipe can carry fractional simply, and I don't think we will
> be worried
> >about saving 1M here or there, not on fiber at any rate. Copper
> could have a
> >need for DSO transport I guess and POTS, but I have no interest in that.
> >It's too much like hard work to cope with all the variations on
> POTS unless
> >one has that IPR in the bag already., which I don't.
> >
> >The need for data over circuit will disappear quite quickly once Ethernet
> >services are available as a direct alternative (at least that's
> what we all
> >believe in EFM and the MEF, isn't it).
> >
> >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: 10 December 2001 13:08
> > > To: ???; stds-802-3-efm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jangrai,
> > >
> > > I would be interested in the economics of the efforts that I have been
> > > seeing. With the new chip sets available to build narrowband/wideband
> > > cross connects, the cost per T0/E0 per port is going to be very
> > > low for the
> > > direct simple implementations. With the issue of jitter compensation,
> > > clock tolerance, service overhead, etc, I am nor sure that
> TDM emulation
> > > will pay for itself outside of it being part of other
> services. The real
> > > problem is that most requirements for TDM emulation are for
> > > "Private Line"
> > > type of services, which running over packets/frames intermingled
> > > with other
> > > services and/or other customer's, traffic is hard to qualify
> as "Private
> > > Line" other than name only. It will be interesting to see how
> > > this works out.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > > Orbital View LLC
> > >
> > > At 12:39 AM 12/10/2001 +0900, ??? wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hello,
> > > >
> > > >What do you think of T1/E1 and T3/E3 circuit emulation over EFM?
> > > >Some vendors have announced TDM integration over IP.
> > > >It might be some problematic in cost/performance due to cost of
> > > >delay/jitter compensation. And how about supporting resiliency?
> > > >
> > > >Jangrai Roh
> > >
>