RE: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation
Interesting.
Are there any CLECs, ELECs, CAPs etc. out there that would justify a claim
of 'broad market acceptance' for circuit support in the last / first mile
over EFM?
Speak now or see a multitude of business plans evaporate into a .com style
haze :-).
Not mine I hasten to add, but it would take a dent in the US context.
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Cook [mailto:cicook@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 December 2001 19:26
> To: kmccammon@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: btolley@xxxxxxxxx; bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> stds-802-3-efm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation
>
>
> Qwest concurs with SBC.
>
> Charles
>
> kmccammon@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Bruce and all,
> > SBC does consider that next generation fiber access solutions
> should support
> > TDM such as T1 and voice services. If TDM services must be done on a
> > separate wavelength and not with the PHY below 802.3 MAC, the EFM optics
> > group should pick a wavelength plan that can support wavelength
> evolution.
> > -Kent
> >
> > Kent G. McCammon
> > Access and Video Technologies
> > SBC Technology Resources, Inc
> > 4698 Willow Road
> > Pleasanton, CA 94588
> > 925-598-1246
> > kmccammon@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property
> of SBC, are
> > confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or
> > entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of
> the named
> > recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have
> received this
> > message in error, please notify the sender at 925-598-1246 and
> delete this
> > message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention,
> > dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail
> is strictly
> > prohibited.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 6:19 PM
> > > To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-efm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob:
> > > I would welcome a presentation on this topic.
> > >
> > > If there is serious interest in supporting this application,
> > > while I think
> > > support for it is clearly outside the scope of the project,
> > > one approach
> > > would not be to define a PHY to support it but to leave wavelengths
> > > available so we do not break the ability of other implementations to
> > > support it.
> > >
> > > Bruce Tolley
> > > Cisco Systems
> > >
> > > At 10:03 PM 12/9/2001 +0000, Bob Barrett wrote:
> > >
> > > >Jangrai
> > > >
> > > >I am interested in TDM over EFM and over IP, however, so far
> > > EFM has ruled
> > > >TDM as out of scope or implementation specific.
> > > >
> > > >It is one thing to run TDM in packets, it is actually easier
> > > to run TDM in
> > > >side bands, but that would mean changing the PHY. I was going to do a
> > > >presentation on this in Portland but I pulled it because
> > > there appeared to
> > > >be zero chance of changing the PHY at that point. If the
> > > group adopts OAM
> > > >other than in frames the PHY will need to be changed, and at
> > > that time
> > > >Pandora's Box will be open, so to speak, and I will come
> > > back in with my
> > > >presentations. May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
> > > I.E. if we are
> > > >changing the PHY for OAM we may as well change it to add
> > > side band TDM.
> > > >
> > > >In all packet networks circuit emulation as frames or IP is
> > > needed in the
> > > >metro / back-haul. Side band TDM won't cut it.
> > > >
> > > >In traditional networks circuits can be done as they are
> > > today, or at worst
> > > >they need to be carried in the last mile / first mile along
> > > side the packet
> > > >traffic, to where the SONET / SDH metro handles them in the
> > > back-haul.
> > > >
> > > >I have technology for both that I would be willing to
> > > contribute to EFM if
> > > >the group were to feel that that was a desirable enhancement
> > > to the EFM
> > > >specification.
> > > >
> > > >There is certainly new silicon for EPON, probably for
> > > outside plant 1GE, and
> > > >probably for 10Base4 copper. However, I see the
> > > applicability being EPON and
> > > >1GE only, unless there is a benefit in changing the T1/E1
> > > from its current
> > > >copper coding to something else to reduce cross-talk on the
> > > copper PHY.
> > > >
> > > >Hugh / Howard - any comment on this from the copper track please?
> > > >
> > > >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 ???
> > > > > Sent: 09 December 2001 15:39
> > > > > To: stds-802-3-efm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > >
>