Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th




Roy,
Thanks for your clarification.   

I think the combination of a TDM service along with a data service using
Ethernet service interfaces over one fiber architecture can be a good
transition from a TDM to packet network.  Integrated systems that combine
established and revenue proven services with new services that could produce
revenue could help my company.  
Thanks,
-Kent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:47 PM
> To: Mccammon, Kent G.; 'Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 
> stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
> Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> 
> 
> Kent,
> 
> As all of the functionality of 802.3ah is frame based, I 
> would be cautious 
> stating that any of it would be able to support T1 services, 
> particularly 
> "Private Line".  Packet based voice services that emulate T1 would, 
> however, qualify under the ANSI and ITU "services" 
> definitions as "packet" 
> or "virtual circuit over packet".
> 
> The emulation as well as the OAM are frame based, not 
> facilities based so 
> 802.3ah is packet/frame service oriented, not subscription network 
> oriented.  The term "exclusive use" can not be applied to an 
> services which 
> are provided over any of the 802.3ah frames, except where the 
> physical 
> copper/fiber facility is dedicated to the customer.  Unless 
> there have been 
> some radical changes to the wording of ITU x.7 in the last 
> year, 802.3ah 
> PON will not qualify to provide any kind of Leased Circuit 
> Private Line 
> services.
> 
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> 
> 
> 
> At 05:45 PM 12/4/2002 -0800, Mccammon, Kent G. wrote:
> 
> >Tom,
> >Since I have a conflict with the call tomorrow and I am 
> interested in 
> >this decision, here are some questions.
> >
> >1)Do any of the options for PON timing impact the delivery 
> of services 
> >such as toll quality voice, a T1, or multicast video? We had this 
> >concern previously and the answer previously was claimed to 
> be only an 
> >efficiency hit for loose timing. Are the modeling assumptions to 
> >compare efficiency valid for TDM services or is that not a 
> >consideration in this debate to date? 2)The negotiation of timing 
> >parameters rather than a tight specification have any impact 
> on future 
> >interoperability testing?  If we ever decide to test 
> interoperability 
> >of EPON OLT and ONT, can a lab testing system be reasonably built to 
> >test compliance to a specification for OLT/ONT timing for 
> the various 
> >options under debate? 3)Do operating temperature swings have 
> an impact 
> >on timing options. Is their reason to add extra margin or extra 
> >negotiation time of timing parameters due to temperature variations? 
> >What about cold start in cold temperatures, that was an 
> issue for power 
> >levels, does it also impact the electronics of the PMD?
> >
> >Comment: As an advocate of PON technologies I echo my 
> earlier comments 
> >about striving for common PON PMD to get the volume started 
> in today's 
> >economy.  I am optimistic a compromise can be found in 
> January. Thanks,
> >-Kent
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:12 AM
> > > To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
> > > Subject: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Again,
> > >
> > > Attacted two possible approaches to this discussion forming two 
> > > decision trees. Glen and I worked on these I I did not 
> have a chance 
> > > to co-ordinate with him and refine to one slide.  The 
> first slide is 
> > > mine and I would like to start here as it allows us to generate 
> > > values without having to make decisions. When the values 
> are agreed 
> > > upon, we can work towards the decision and perhaps this 
> is simpler 
> > > with the values we have.
> > >
> > > If this does not work, we can try the seconf slide, 
> Glen's approach, 
> > > which is a more top-down attack.
> > >
> > > Talk to you tomorrow
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > >  <<PON Timing Decision Tree.ppt>>
> > >
> > > Hello All,
> > >
> > > Items to Be Covered
> > >
> > > 1)  Determine the exact meaning of the terms "Fixed Value" and 
> > > 'Upper Bound" in terms
> > >     of their use for PMD timing parameters.
> > >
> > > 2)  Try assign placeholder values for all of the options
> > >
> > > 3)  Are these values fixed or bounded for the different options.
> > >
> > > 4)  Other items
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>