RE: [EFM] PON timing parameters - a conservative's view
Ariel,
The phrases "commonality" and "economies of scale" are tricky,
and can take on various flavors, depending on what we mean and
what assumptions we accept.
If economy of scale is to encompass the whole PMD, then Frank is
right; the power level differences are enough to rule out the
possibility of implementing the whole P2P PMD to be the same as
P2MP PMD.
If economy of scale refers to the laser driver circuit/IC, then
it's quite possible to achieve powerful economies of scale
between P2P and P2MP, provided loose timing parameters are
specified (and tight parameters are permitted.)
Regards,
Vipul
==============
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On
> Behalf Of Ariel
> Maislos
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:09 PM
> To: Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Cc: Kent McCammon; 'Jonathan Thatcher'; 'Frank Effenberger'
> Subject: RE: [EFM] PON timing parameters - a
> conservative's view
>
>
>
> Vipul,
>
> What is the commonality between the single-fiber
> PON-ONU PMD and the
> single-fiber P2P-ONU PMD?
> Would loose timing parameters for the PON-ONU PMD
> make the two PMDs
> (almost) identical?
> My understanding is that once a Bi-Directional module
> is inserted in the
> PMD (the significant effort) almost no difference
> exist between the two
> PMDs if timing parameters are loose?
>
> Would it not make a lot of sense to seek economies of
> scale with P2P
> Ethernet?
> As there are always question marks around PON, yet no
> doubt as to the
> success of P2P Ethernet, would it not make more sense
> to reach for cost
> savings through Ethernet compatibility?
>
> Ariel
>