Re: [EFM] Banana networks

[Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Geoff,

There are always those that would say to governments or those in control, 
if you would only do it my way, things would be better.  I have been guilty 
of that myself.  It does not however change anything.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum



At 12:15 PM 12/12/2002 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Roy-
>
>At 08:54 PM 12/10/2002 -0600, Roy Bynum wrote:
>>Geoff,
>>
>>A service subscription network does not work like a privately owned LAN 
>>facility.
>
>Currently true. Therein lies a great part of the problem that some of us 
>are trying to solve.
>Carriers have formulated the tariff/revenue model forever and it is based 
>on the "old" model that bandwidth is scarce and precious.
>Customers and us cranks from the LAN industry both want the WAN to look 
>like a LAN
>
>>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.
>
>You are assuming that the revenue/tariff model will not change.
>I believe (1) that it will, if not in the US then elsewhere in the world 
>in countries who are willing to bet that a new model will provide a "great 
>lap forward" for them. and (2) if the revenue model does not change then 
>EFM not be a success to any significant degree.
>
>
>>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
>
>The world's WAN space is awash in lit and unlit excess bandwidth. 
>(Transatlantic lit capacity is currently said to be 7X traffic) The telcom 
>industry has no way to sell a significant portion of it in the current 
>revenue model. Ultimately they (or their scrap dealers, who won't care 
>about the current revenue. That's what makes scrap dealers/scavengers 
>different) will have to make a decision about how to get some revenue out 
>of it any way they can. High jitter, high bandwidth packet delivery 
>systems that are terrible for real time voice and video provide the 
>potential for this. If the scrap dealers can sell it this way in the 
>regulated space I would expect them to do so. If the scrap dealers can 
>sell in the unregulated space then they won't have to go to the trouble of 
>making it jitter.
>
>This vast vacuum of available bandwidth in the core will suck players into 
>the access space to provide paths to the core.. Nature abhors a vacuum. 
>Physics always wins in the long haul (pun intended).
>
>Geoff
>
>
>>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@cisco.com
>>>>> > > > 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@infineon.com'; 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
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > >