RE: [EFM] Banana networks
Roy, with no offense intended, spoken like a true bell head. Of course it isn't. But, that isn't the point, is it?
To me a service is getting my kids to wash the car; wash the dog; wash the dishes; water the garden; take more baths :-) I usually call this layer 8 of the OSI stack (this is a long way from thinking of a service as a "dial tone").
We should be able to get past the economics of monopoly, artificial scarcity, and special packaging forcing up margins and profits for the distributors. Let's see, if I can control the distribution of for clear, polished rocks (CPRs), I can get people to pay incredible prices for CPRs. No CPR on your hand, then no one loves you! Hey, I can even grade these so that some CPRs are worth more than other CPRs. If you have a more valuable CPR than you must be loved more. Hey, I can even get people to sell CPRs at all the malls in America!
After a while, people forget about what it is they really want and start talking about things like "private wire line" or "virtual private network" or a "T1 service" or....
Me? I want video on demand (no, not streaming video, but an HDTV qualifty version of www.movielink.com); I want instantaneous response to browse sites like www.movielink.com (I want the network to wait for me, I am tired of waiting on the network).
Sure, I'll buy some Evian (video conferencing), but this should be a niche market.
jonathan
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
| Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:52 PM
| To: Jonathan Thatcher; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
| Subject: RE: [EFM] Banana networks
|
|
| Ethernet is a facility technology, not a service. Just like
| ocean water
| carrys bananas from island to island, Ethernet will be used to carry
| services from service provider to customer.
|
| Wrong topic of metaphors
|
| Roy
|
| At 03:32 PM 12/11/2002 -0800, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
|
| >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@xxxxxxxx;
| >| > >>> > > > 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
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > > > >
| >| > >>> > > >
| >|
| >|
|
|