Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
That's not to say that some enterprising vendor couldn't come up with a
solution that could do just that; however, I would be inclined (like
Kevin) to perhaps put that out of scope for this specific group. As has
been mentioned before, focus is likely to be critical to our success.
Thanks.
Matt
On 12/13/11 8:47 PM, "Noll, Kevin" <kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Ugh!
>
>Hesham, I don't like where you are headed with that last comment about
>HomePlug, CM, etc.
>
>I assume for now that your comment was rhetorical. I don't think I could
>support development inside this group of a system that would be able to
>interoperate with all those other standards.
>
>--kan--
>--
>Kevin A. Noll, CCIE
>Principal Engineer
>Time Warner Cable
>13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
>Herndon, VA 20171
>o: +1-703-345-3666
>m: +1-717-579-4738
>AIM: knollpoi
>
>From: Hesham ElBakoury
><Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>Reply-To: Hesham ElBakoury
><Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:03:19 -0500
>To:
>"STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>G>"
><STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>G>>
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
>
>Mark,
>
>Comments below.
>
>Hesham
>
>From: Mark Laubach [mailto:laubach@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:59 AM
>To:
>STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
>
>Hi John,
>
>And for others that have joined the EPoC Study Group email discussion
>list. Welcome!
>
>There are a number of things that are in the Call for Interest (CFI)
>presentation as guidance items. The CFI is available at:
>
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/epoc/public/nov11/index.html
>
>My initial answers. Note: The SG contribution and consensus process will
>have more on these as its official answers:
>1) Open for SG discussion, flexible with cable operator initial
>deployment and changes. As an SG effort, we¹ll probably need to evaluate
>from 5MHz to 2.8GHz (there are taps in the market that run up 2.8GHzŠ.)
>2) and 3) strong preference for ³as is² but cable operator requirements
>followed by SG work to see how it plays out
>4) open for discussion, but there is the strong notion of being able to
>work ³around² existing services without disruption
>5) EPoC is a new service that should be compatible with existing services
>and ³on the wire² signaling. While specific signaling mathematics will
>be a topic for the Task Force, the SG will likely have some
>guidance/objectives at conclusion going into the TF.
>HEB> If EPoC is a service then it is more than just a PHY and therefore,
>as Matt mentioned we need to study the interactions between the PHY and
>different components of EPoC system to achieve the intended service
>and performance.
>HEB> I am assuming that by ³signaling on the wire² you mean the
>modulation used by the PHY (e.g. OFDM, wavelet OFDM, QAM, Š. Etc). In
>this respect, by compatibility with existing services do you mean that
>EPoC
>as a service needs to support new PHY and existing PHYs ? i.e. Does CMC
>need to find out if at the other end of the wire it is connected to CNU,
>CM, or say HomePlugAV CPE and then uses the appropriate
>PHY modulation and appropriate MAC ?
>
>Mark
>
>From: John Santhoff [mailto:jsanthoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 9:05 PM
>To:
>STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
>
>I'm new to this group so please forgive me if these questions have
>already been answered. If so where can I find the document?
>
>1) What are the frequencies to be used for Downstream and Upstream?
>
>2) Is the goal to use the existing infrastructure "As-Is" or do we have
>the option to upgrade equipment?
>
>3) Is the goal to maintain existing amplifier spacing?
>
>4) Is the plan to maintain the 6/8 MHz channel spacing?
>
>5) What about legacy signaling? Is that being maintained?
>
>-John
>
>
>
>On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Hesham ElBakoury
><Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>Hi Howard,
>
>
>
>I have few questions regarding the Operator requirements (pertaining to
>physical layer):
>
>
>
> Service coexistence issues and criteria
>
> Services to be provided over EPoC
>
>HEB> Do you mean residential and business services or video, IPTV, VoIP,
>data services ?
>
> and how they will evolve over time
>
> Business vs residential services
>
> (will they exist on the same network?)
>
> Asymmetry vs. symmetry
>
> Existing cable plant characteristics
>
> Architectures
>
> (Node+0 "passive", Node+N [N=1-?], Complete HFC, MxU)
>
> Amplifier characteristics and considerations that will effect the
>PHY
>
> Cable & passives characteristics
>
> Typical size of cable plant
>
>HEB> I am not sure how you measure the size ? (number of home passed,
>size of coverage area, number of nodes, Š etc).
>
> Subscribers passed
>
> Number and size of taps
>
> Changes to cable plant characteristics over time
>
> (e.g. passive and active element changes, any use of bypasses?)
>
> Spectral allocation
>
> and how it changes over time
>
> Which frequencies are amplified and which are passive
>
> ` What spectrum will be allocated for EPoC initially,
>
> and how will that change over time
>
> Regional differences for changes?
>
> Functional Assumptions and Impairments
>
> DOCSIS 3.0 has already characterized in CM-SP-PHYv3.0-I05-070803,
>Chapter 5,
>
> and in CM-SP-DRFI-I12-111117, Chapter 5, for "in
>amplified" regions of
>
> cable. For both "in amplified" and "passive" EPoC
>considerations, are
>
> there any additonal functional assumptions and
>impairments that need to
>
> be considered for up to 1Gbps and higher operation?
>
> How will these change over time?
>
> Are there regional differences; e.g. China, Europe?
>
> Number of subscribers per network, take rate
>
> Minimum required channel data rate
>
> Maximum desired channel data rate
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>Hesham
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard Frazier
>[mailto:hfrazier@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:hfrazier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 7:00 PM
>To:
>STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
>
>
>
>The first meeting of the IEEE 802.3 EPON Protocol over Coax (EPoC) PHY
>Study Group will be held January 24th and 25th in Newport Beach, CA,
>hosted by the Ethernet Alliance. Please see my previous message for links
>to meeting logistical details.
>
>
>
>In preparation for the meeting, Mark Laubach and I put together a list of
>topics that can help us prepare for a successful study group meeting, and
>these are listed in the attached file.
>
>
>
>The first set of topics deals with the IEEE 802 standards development
>process. I have all of the material I need for this section, and I am
>sure that I will be able to enlist the help of some of our experienced
>hands to deliver it.
>
>
>
>The second set of topics deals with operator requirements, and this is
>where I would like to make an appeal for contributions. We may not get
>contributions that address all of the topics listed, and there may not
>even be universal agreement that the topics are relevant, but I think
>that these are areas that must be explored in the study group if we are
>to do a proper job of defining the scope of a new project, and judging it
>against the "5 Criteria".
>
>
>
>People wishing to make a contribution to the study group should review
>the "Procedure for Presenters" information that can be found here:
>
>
>
>http://www.ieee802.org/3/epoc/public/presentproc.html
>
>
>
>Since this is a new email reflector, I would also like to make people
>aware of the IEEE 802.3 Working Group email reflector policy that can be
>found here:
>
>
>
>http://www.ieee802.org/3/reflector_policy.html
>
>
>
>I will welcome your comments and questions.
>
>
>
>Howard Frazier
>
>Broadcom Corporation
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>
>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>
>________________________________
>
>
>________________________________
>
>________________________________
>
><="" p="">
>
>________________________________
>
>________________________________
>This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
>copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
>for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
>are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
>that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in
>relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly
>prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in
>error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the
>original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1