RE: [EFM] Banana networks
Ethernet isn't like bananas, it's like water.
See: http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t511-s2126581,00.html
I like this metaphor much better.
jonathan
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Hugh Barrass [mailto:hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx]
| Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:37 AM
| To: Roy Bynum
| Cc: Geoff Thompson; Sanjeev Mahalawat; ariel.maislos@xxxxxxxxxxx;
| 'Mccammon, Kent G.'; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
| stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
| Subject: Re: [EFM] Banana networks
|
|
|
| Roy,
|
| Much as I hate to argue with a telco old-hand, I think that
| you are confusing
| capability and usage as well as ignoring the distinction
| between edge and core.
|
| The tendency over many years in Service Provider networks is
| to over-provision (in
| terms of infrastructure capability) at the edge - this allows
| the possibility of
| "up-selling" whilst simultaneously over-subscribing in the
| core - using statistical
| multiplexing to "get away with it."
|
| This creates and provisioning vs subscription pyramid - the amount of
| over-subscription or over-provisioning depends on where you
| are in the pyramid. This
| is not too dissimilar from the architecture of LAN networks
| where edge connections
| are underutilized but the core may be oversubscribed. Note
| that the term
| "provisioning" here refers to the deployment of
| infrastructure - not the enabling and
| management of services (which is a separate topic).
|
| Finally, I accept that the range and types of service offered
| have many requirements
| beyond simple bandwidth (some of which are legal, rather than
| technical
| distinctions). However, the scope of Ethernet is to provide a
| link - not to control
| what rides above it - so simple bandwidth is what we deal with.
|
| Hugh.
|
| Roy Bynum wrote:
|
| > Jeff,
| >
| > A service subscription network does not work like a
| privately owned LAN
| > facility. In a subscription network, there is no such
| thing as "excess
| > bandwidth". A copper facility will be provisioned and
| operate at the
| > maximum that the distance attenuation will allow. Fiber
| facilities will be
| > provisioned to provide the maximum service bandwidth that
| the customer is
| > willing to pay for. When more than one customer can be put
| on the fiber
| > facility, the service provider will provision the maximum
| that the fiber
| > will support, often for packet/frame facilities, the
| bandwidth will be over
| > provisioned in the aggregate for all of the customers.
| This will hold true
| > for either P2P or P2MP. This is one of the economic realities of
| > subscription networks. The limitation of how much
| bandwidth and how many
| > customers is put on that bandwidth is strictly do to the physical
| > limitations of the facilities and the willingness of the sales and
| > marketing people to keep putting people on the same facility.
| >
| > The use of "lettuce", "bananas", and "peanuts" was an
| effort to be able to
| > indirectly discuss issues of service functionality
| requirements, which up
| > until now, have not been fully explored. Since "services"
| delivery is the
| > specific purpose of a subscription network, without such a
| discussion, how
| > will the group know if they have achieved the basic
| objective of "Support
| > Subscriber Access Network ..."
| >
| > Thank you,
| > Roy Bynum
| >
| > At 03:46 PM 12/10/2002 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
| >
| > >Roy-
| > >I think Hugh is closer to the mark than you are here.
| > >The Ethernet link to the end user tries to be one simple thing:
| > > An excess bandwidth connection to the core network and the
| > > facilities that such a network connects to.
| > >
| > >No peanuts vs. bananas, just one thing, excess bandwidth.
| > >Sort of like a car.
| > >You got two people in the family you can live with a
| smaller car than if
| > >you have seven.
| > >In either case you buy a car that has at least enough
| seats for the family.
| > >In all cases you are buying transportation capacity for
| your family or a
| > >subset thereof.
| > >
| > >Geoff
| > >
| > >At 06:39 PM 12/9/2002 -0600, Roy Bynum wrote:
| > >
| > >>Hugh,
| > >>
| > >>I think the analogy of the produce stand would be more
| appropriate, from
| > >>a service providers standpoint, if you were to make the
| produce align
| > >>with the services that are delivered, and then physical
| stand becomes the
| > >>delivery infrastructure, of which 802.3ah is a part.
| From a service
| > >>providers perspective, he has several stands in different
| parts of the
| > >>town that he wants to sell out of.
| > >>
| > >>Just like any produce market, you have different kinds of produce,
| > >>vegetables like lettuce, fruit like bananas, and nuts like
| > >>peanuts. Sometimes the type of equipment in the stand
| dictates what
| > >>kind of produce he can sell, for example, vegetables like
| lettuce tend to
| > >>do better in refrigerated coolers than in the open heat,
| while nuts like
| > >>peanuts tend to like warm dry storage. Just like a real
| produce stand,
| > >>there are some items that people are willing to pay more
| for than they
| > >>are for other items. A single head of lettuce brings a
| lot more than a
| > >>single peanut. I am sure that every wife would love to
| pay the cost of a
| > >>single peanut for a head of lettuce, but they know it
| does not work that
| > >>way even though they complain to the grocer. The items
| that do not sell
| > >>for as much, must sell in higher quantity to be able to
| be economical,
| > >>because produce seller does make as much off of each one that he
| > >>sells. A grocer does not make as much off of a single
| peanut as he does
| > >>a single head of lettuce. Also, the owner of the produce
| stands needs to
| > >>be able to supply the produce that meets what the
| customers want to
| > >>eat. Trying to change the way the customers eat produce,
| often does not
| > >>work. Trying to sell tame "vege-burgers" to someone from
| the Southwest
| > >>that is used to hot and spicy meat, would not often work.
| Those of you
| > >>with ethnic backgrounds know what I mean. (I am including
| Texans like me
| > >>that prefer beef steaks to turkey.)
| > >>
| > >>The produce stand owner needs to be sure that his stands
| can either sell
| > >>the produce that he makes more off of, or that the
| produce that he makes
| > >>less off of can have a higher quantity supply. Or he has
| to have stands
| > >>that will sell all kinds of produce.
| > >>
| > >>This is where the equipment in the stand becomes very
| important. If the
| > >>produce stand owner simply buys a type of equipment for
| his stand tries
| > >>to sell whatever can be carried by that equipment, while
| someone else
| > >>builds stands with different equipment that will sell
| either the better
| > >>produce, or be able to deliver a higher quantity of the
| lessor produce,
| > >>then the original owner of the produce stands will have economic
| > >>problems. This makes it not only important for the
| makers of the produce
| > >>stand equipment to be aware of the issues, but also the
| owner of the
| > >>produce stands needs to pay closer attention to what the
| customers are
| > >>buying so as to make sure that he is building the right
| kind of produce stands.
| > >>
| > >>In this analogy, 802.3ah becomes the equipment in the
| produce stand. The
| > >>different kinds of produce are different kinds of
| services. Just like
| > >>there are certain kinds of produce that people are
| willing to pay more
| > >>for, there are services that people are willing to pay
| more for. The
| > >>services that they are not willing to pay more for must be able to
| > >>deliver at a higher quantity than the higher cost
| services. 802.3ah in
| > >>the different media must be able to deliver either higher quality
| > >>services, or high quantity services. I am sure that the service
| > >>providers would like to migrate their customers to the
| higher quantity
| > >>services, but many times that does not work for customers
| that are used
| > >>to the higher quality. It is very difficult to change
| the way that people eat.
| > >>
| > >>Thank you,
| > >>Roy Bynum
| > >>
| > >>At 08:55 AM 12/9/2002 -0800, Hugh Barrass wrote:
| > >>
| > >>>Sanjeev,
| > >>>
| > >>>Good to see that you've introduced perishable fruit into
| the discussion
| > >>>- more
| > >>>relevant than many people expect...
| > >>>
| > >>>If you have a fruit stand selling your bananas then you
| have a difficult
| > >>>problem
| > >>>to decide how many bananas to start each day with (for
| simplicity I will
| > >>>assume
| > >>>that you can choose to have your banana delivery each
| morning and also that
| > >>>bananas decompose at the end of each day). You may make
| a reasonable
| > >>>guess at how
| > >>>many you will sell on average, but you can't predict how
| many you will
| > >>>sell on a
| > >>>given day. So what should you do?
| > >>>
| > >>>You could err on the conservative side - only buy
| "enough" bananas so
| > >>>that on some
| > >>>days you have a few bananas left over, on other days you
| run out before
| > >>>closing
| > >>>time. This way you minimize the wastage. The downside is
| that on many days
| > >>>customers arrive and are disappointed. Those customers may look
| > >>>elsewhere for
| > >>>their bananas and discover the other fruit stand that
| doesn't run out -
| > >>>you've
| > >>>lost a regular customer that will reduce your average sales.
| > >>>
| > >>>Alternatively, you could over-provision. You buy more
| than the average
| > >>>number of
| > >>>bananas with a view to minimizing the number of days
| when customers are
| > >>>turned
| > >>>away. This will mean a larger wastage of bananas which
| can be weighed
| > >>>against the
| > >>>better overall sales figure. The advantage is that you
| are buying the
| > >>>bananas
| > >>>wholesale and selling them retail (plus tax).
| > >>>
| > >>>The Ethernet Solution
| > >>>==============
| > >>>
| > >>>Network provisioning is a similar problem. Bandwidth
| must be provisioned but
| > >>>cannot be carried over from one day to the next - it is
| the ultimate
| > >>>"perishable
| > >>>resource."
| > >>>
| > >>>Ethernet aims to make the bananas so cheap that the cost
| per banana can
| > >>>(almost)
| > >>>be ignored. You massively over-provision, you never need
| to turn away
| > >>>customers
| > >>>and the wastage is forgotten. As you approach the point
| when there is a
| > >>>possibility of turning away customers, you implement QOS
| (reserving
| > >>>bananas for
| > >>>your best repeat customers) to keep things going a bit
| longer. Then you
| > >>>simply
| > >>>order the next biggest box - the Ethernet advantage is
| that much higher
| > >>>speeds at
| > >>>small increments in cost are available because a
| simplistic approach
| > >>>allows us to
| > >>>ride the technology curve.
| > >>>
| > >>>So, whether it's networks or bananas, you need to take
| the approach that
| > >>>a simple
| > >>>(and apparently wasteful) approach will often beat the
| theoretical
| > >>>optimization
| > >>>that complicates unnecessarily.
| > >>>
| > >>>Hugh.
| > >>>
| > >>>PS - anyone want to buy some bananas?
| > >>>
| > >>>Sanjeev Mahalawat wrote:
| > >>>
| > >>> > Ariel,
| > >>> >
| > >>> > At 12:23 AM 12/6/2002 -0800, Ariel Maislos wrote:
| > >>> >
| > >>> > >Sanjeev,
| > >>> >
| > >>> > Sorry I am leaving out your economic and i-bubble
| content as I seem to be
| > >>> > unable to answer it. :)
| > >>> >
| > >>> > >Under these circumstances I would argue that 1% more
| bandwidth is not
| > >>> > >equal to 1% more bananas from each subscriber, or 1%
| more subscribers
| > >>> > >for that matter.
| > >>> >
| > >>> > One buys x bananas and sells only x-1 and saves 1 for
| oneself in case
| > >>> one gets
| > >>> > hungry and if one does not get hungry throw away.
| Thats not increase
| > >>> > that is loss. Now, one starts with only x-1 (low) and
| pay more that
| > >>> may be
| > >>> > different
| > >>> > choice.
| > >>> >
| > >>> > >1% more bandwidth is equal to XX more bananas in
| transceiver costs as we
| > >>> > >are not allowed to leverage the economies of scale
| inherent in Gigabit
| > >>> > >Ethernet, a market that has significantly more
| volume than a future
| > >>> > >ITU-T market.
| > >>> >
| > >>> > Agree if one can get x bananas from A (IEEE) in less
| money than x-1 (from
| > >>> > ITU-T)
| > >>> > and could make same or more money even has to throw 1
| or more bananas, it
| > >>> > may make sense to buy cheap to some.
| > >>> >
| > >>> > Thanks,
| > >>> > Sanjeev
| > >>> >
| > >>> > >Ariel
| > >>> > >
| > >>> > >
| > >>> > > > -----Original Message-----
| > >>> > > > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
| > >>> > > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]
| On Behalf Of
| > >>> > > > Sanjeev Mahalawat
| > >>> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 19:34
| > >>> > > > To: ariel.maislos@xxxxxxxxxxx
| > >>> > > > Cc: 'Mccammon, Kent G.'; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
| > >>> > > > stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org;
| wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
| > >>> > > > Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone
| Conference, December 5th
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > > At 02:51 PM 12/5/2002 -0800, Ariel Maislos wrote:
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > > >The only questions remaining for the service providers to
| > >>> > > > answer is can
| > >>> > > > >they make more money from the network with the
| extra 1.2% of
| > >>> > > > bandwidth?
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > > SP should do the calculation. But it is tempting
| to see the money
| > >>> > > > difference, so just that.
| > >>> > > > This 1.2% translates to about 11.616 Mbps, around 7.5
| > >>> > > > 1.54Mbps DSL connections. Assuming $50 per DSL it
| is around
| > >>> > > > $377/PON/month. Assume one 32-port OLT
| > >>> > > > serving
| > >>> > > > 1024 customers (assuming 1:32 ratio) it would be
| > >>> > > > $12064/month. Does this SP lost revenue breaks their neck,
| > >>> > > > they would know?
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > > Thanks,
| > >>> > > > Sanjeev
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > >
| > >>> > > > >Regards,
| > >>> > > > > Ariel
| > >>> > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
| > >>> > > > > > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
| > >>> > > > > >
| [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
| > >>> > > > > > Mccammon, Kent G.
| > >>> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 17:45
| > >>> > > > > > To: 'Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx';
| stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
| > >>> > > > > > Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
| > >>> > > > > > Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone
| Conference, December 5th
| > >>> > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > 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@xxxxxxxxx
| > >>> > > > > > > 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
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > > >
| > >>> > > > > >
| > >>> > > >
|
|