| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Marek, I strongly doubt that Ron was suggesting that we make a decision randomly and in absence of the factors you mention. Instead, I believe his point — and I think it's a valid one — is that the charter of the ad hoc was to investigate whether or not to include this feature in the standard, as opposed to fully defining the feature. Some basic definition of how it would work is necessary to determine whether or not it makes sense to include it — I'm in agreement with you there — but we only need to fully define all of the details if the decision is made to include it in the standard. Thanks. Matt From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx<mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>> Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx<mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>> Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:33 AM To: "STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Ron, You just can’t take a decision whether to add such a feature into the standard or not on a flip of a coin, disregarding the impact analysis. Such a decision has impact on complexity, cost, performance as well as technical and economic feasibility of the resulting system. This is what we are trying right now to assess, to make sure we do not take the wrong decision. So I respectfully disagree that our mission is not to worry on how it is implemented – in fact, if decided in favour, we would need to write the standard which describes implementation of such a feature using the 802.3 model. Furthermore, we do need to worry about the resulting cost, especially in the light of Economic Feasibility criteria our final product has to meet – we have a contract with 802 as the whole to make it cost-effective. Regards Marek From: Ron Wolfe [mailto:rwolfe@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 00:35 To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc To me it feels as though we may be having a discussion beyond the scope of the group. With the exception that it is focused not just on unicast, but also on multicast and broadcast, I view this as very similar to adaptive streaming in the MPEG transport and IPTV domain. I am not implying the technology is necessarily the same, but rather that those use cases that drive the need for adaptive streaming in the video domain will drive it in the EPOC domain as well. HFC is not like FTTx, and downstream is not like upstream. Downhill from the FCU there will be many things that will affect the throughput of the system; some widespread and some isolated, and to force all clients to a lowest common denominator is (in my opinion) likely to result in a less than ideal solution. Yes, it is true that there is some embedded cost that will exist whether or not (and how) the MSO utilizes MMP, but if I recall, our mission was not to resolve how this is implemented, nor how much it costs, nor to what extent it would be utilized, but instead to decide as a group whether it should be incorporated into the standard. Am I over-simplifying? Ron From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 5:14 PM To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Marek, Actually, I believe you suggested the idea of multiple EPoC generations to support MMP; or at least that's the way I understood your previous email where you suggested that we could introduce MMP to FDD operation at a later date. So I was trying to respond to that by indicating that in the case of MMP, because of the assumptions that get built into the system without at least creating the framework to support it, introduction at a later date most likely would not be possible. Additionally, it doesn't necessarily have to be multiple generations, but rather an optional feature that vendors could choose to implement or not based on their perceived market need. And for what it's worth, I like the idea of having just one generation — it makes operations a lot simpler. My personal experience to date, though, has been that if you try to throw everything into the first generation the cost is too high; and that has forced us to design in the ability to support multiple generations. It'd be great if that weren't the case here; believe it or not, I'm trying not to make any assumptions on that point in either direction, and to get a sense of where the best cost/complexity/feature balance might be for EPoC. Anyway, just some thoughts. Thanks. Matt From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx<mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>> Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 5:00 PM To: Matthew Schmitt <m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Matt, I do not think that helps much. Configuration messages, even though important from the management perspective, are just a minor aspect of the PHY operation. It like selecting the types of locks in your house and concluding that the most critical part of the building process is done. As for the topic of understanding MMP from day one – you’re assuming immediately that there will be multiple generations of equipment, that they will have to coexist and that we have to specify everything under this project. I disagree with that assumption. I think if we do the job well, we’ll need no generations at all. I certainly would not like to see EPoC being burdened with DOCSIS-like complexity from day one. We have a chance to design a system that perhaps is not as loaded with options and perhaps does not achieve 100% of spectral efficiency, but should be simple and cost-effective. Marek From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 23:48 To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Marek, I guess I was thinking more that perhaps the feature exists, but there isn't a requirement to use it (or to even be able to use it). So for example, you would define the message framing and the signaling that would allow multiple profiles to operate, but you wouldn't require devices to support more than one profile. It's a bit more development work that might've been necessary, but not necessarily a lot depending on how things are define. This assumes that the bulk of the implementation complexity comes when you move from a single profile to more than one; an approach like this would allow you to go there in the future, but wouldn't require you to do so. That said, it only makes sense if creating the framework doesn't cause a big hit in complexity. As for why FDD devices would have to understand it… The problem is that if you define the CNU such that it always expects a continuous downstream, and more importantly that it can receive any signal in the downstream, then it is all but impossible to introduce the idea of not receiving everything in the downstream subsequently, as you would have to replace every CNU on the network to get it to work (and that just isn't practical). Instead, you need the CNU to understand — from day 1 — that it might not be able to receive everything on the downstream. It might not be able to change profiles, but it would understand enough to be able to ignore other profiles without having issues. Does that help at all? Thanks. Matt From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx<mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>> Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 2:53 PM To: Matthew Schmitt <m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Matt, I do not think we can “lay down the framework” like that in 802.3. Either the feature exists or it does not, especially when we’re talking about features which will have to be hardware implemented. Also, I am not sure why FDD devices have to understand it. It is not that TDD and FDD devices would have to inter-operate on the same network. I hope you’re not assuming that … Marek From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 21:51 To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Marek, I agree that they are intertwined — apologies if that was not clear from my email, because I definitely agree that technical feasibility and complexity directly play into the economic question. The problem with not including MMP into the FDD design from the beginning is that this is the sort of feature that, even if devices don't support it, they have to at least understand it enough to not be confused when it shows up (IMHO, at least). Something like this is likely going to need to be a part of the framework of how things are framed and put on the wire; as such, it may simply not be possible to add it in later unless the framework is already in place. While might be another way of approaching this. Perhaps it would make sense to put the basic framework in place to support MMP, but not require it to be implemented. In that way, you lay the groundwork so that it could be implemented in the future, but you eliminate 95% of the complexity for the first go-around. Of course, there is a question of whether or not you really can eliminate 95% of the complexity in that case; and ultimately that will revolve around what that framework looks like. Thoughts? Thanks! Matt From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx<mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>> Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 2:38 PM To: Matthew Schmitt <m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Matt, For me, economic feasibility and technical feasibility are interleaved. There is no economic feasibility for complex solutions, requiring large chipsets, tons of power and even more buffering. What we need to strive is simple solutions, not solutions at any cost. There is a reason why Ethernet is the leading technology for layer 2 transport and that reason is its simplicity, robustness and cost effectiveness. That said, I do not think any new arguments were brought in favour of MMP or can be brought against MMP. We are repeating discussions that already took place at least twice, wasting time that could be used in a more constructive fashion. This leaves us where we were at the end of last meeting. Perhaps an alternative option for going forward is then incorporating the MMP design into TDD mode first, working out the details and adding it to FDD when it is ready later on. Otherwise, I do not see how we will move forward here. Regards Marek From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 21:19 To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Eugene, Thanks for the note, which is useful both for getting all thoughts on the table and ensure we're thinking of the same thing when we refer to this feature. For example, while I would agree with you that there is no direct correlation between MMP and SLA, and that end-users would likely not get a higher provisioned tier of service as a result of this feature, might it be possible that they would see some benefit at congested times because there's more bandwidth to share around? Also, you mentioned in your email that service providers do not have direct control of the feature, and I'm curious what specifically you're thinking of in that case. My assumption has been that while we would not want to preclude the ability for a CLT/FCU to make autonomous changes to a profile, it would be something that was both not required and configurable by the operator. In that sense, the operator has full control over what profiles are available. Further, while we'll certainly want to have some autonomous mechanisms for switching between profiles — and we'll need to defer to the CLT to decide how to schedule things, at least to some degree — I don't think it would be unreasonable (and likely in fact a very good idea) to allow the operator to define a progression order for the profiles (if you have to leave one profile, then you go to this other one next, etc.), and maybe even some high level bounds around when to switch (again, allowing room for vendors to develop their own algorithms). In those ways, I was thinking that the operator would have a large degree of control, which they could choose to use or not. Did you have something else in mind? As for economic feasibility, that will be driven by a combination of the potential economic gain from the feature vs. its cost. The former is very much derived from analysis of use cases (IMHO), which is why I think they do have relevance; the latter is driven by technical feasibility and complexity. What I would be very interested in seeing is more details on why people believe it is not technically feasible to do MMP with EPoC. I'm not saying that it is or it isn't — I don't regard myself as enough of an expert on EPON to render an opinion there. However, when I hear one group say it is feasible, and another say it isn't, that makes me want to understand better why one side or the other thinks it is or isn't feasible. Does that make sense? Thanks! Matt From: <Dai>, "Eugene (CCI-Atlanta)" <Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx<mailto:Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx>> Reply-To: "Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta)" <Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx<mailto:Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx>> Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 1:34 PM To: "STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Jorge: Sorry for missing the last meetings, I was at Pacific Time zone. Now I am back to East time zone, I’ll try to join tomorrow’s meeting. The fundamental question of MMP is its technical and economic feasibility under the EPON MAC framework; I didn’t think use cases will help at this point. We have presented detailed analysis of both technical and economic challenges of MMP at the San Antonio meeting; I believe everything we have presented still hold. Although I do not believe re-present the old material will help moving forward, I am willing re-present the main points (of San Antonio presentation) tomorrow if necessary; it seems this was what other people did anyway. A few summary points: From service providing point of view: • End-users do not get notable benefit from MMP • Service providers do not have direct control of MMP • There is no direct relationship between MMP and SLA From technical feasibility point of view: MMP introduce significant complexity at PHY, MAC and system levels, especially for EPON to coax rate adaption. From outside plant point of view: A network reference model is needed that including outside plant and in-home-networks that provide base outside plant conditions reference for the future EPoC. Thanks, Eugene From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:51 PM To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Ed, Perhaps, given that you’re having difficulty getting to the ad hoc calls, you could enumerate your issues here on the exploder. That would at least open the dialog and we could debate the issues you see. Personally I don’t see anything that cannot be addressed. Best Regards, Duane FutureWei Technologies Inc. duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx> Director, Access R&D 919 418 4741 Raleigh, NC From: Ed (Edward) Boyd [mailto:ed.boyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:29 PM To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Hi Jorge, I hope that you had a great holiday. Sorry but I’m a little behind on things due to the time off. I agree with Marek. I presented issues with the MMP at the last meeting. I looked over the Qualcomm presentation from the Ad Hoc and I didn’t see any difference from the last IEEE meeting. The issues that I raised at the meeting still exist. If you like, I can repeat those issues to the Ad Hoc. As we discussed before, I’m not able to attend the Ad Hoc based on the time selected. I can try to call in from 6am to 7am on tomorrow’s call. Take care, Ed… From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 4:47 AM To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Jorge, I was under the impression that presentations on the topic of technical challenges associated with MMP implementation have been already presented and discussed in detail at the meetings. I am not sure how presenting the same material in a new form helps move us forward in any way. Perhaps a list of questions on specific aspects of already presented technical challenges would be a better way to move forward? That would give time to prepare concise and comprehensive answers to the benefit of this ad-hoc. I fear that we if we start discussion on the phone, we’ll get lost in details again. Regards Marek From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 05:46 To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Materials from 1/2/13 MMP Ad-hoc and plan for 1/4/13 MMP Ad-hoc Folks, Thanks to those that were able to attend the meeting yesterday. We did not have any presentations on why MMP could not be implemented, so we took the opportunity to review the diagram outlining the use case we reviewed before the holidays (see below for reference). We had lots of discussion about this use case, but did not arrive to any specific conclusions. I attached a transcript of the discussion that Joe Solomon kindly recorded. Given the discussion, and to help the continuation of this discussion, I expanded the use case into 4 slides, each progressively more complex. We will review these slides during our meeting tomorrow. HOWEVER, our focus is on determining why and/or how is MMP not possible to implement. To that end, we are seeking presentations that would outline that specific topic. So, if there are any presentations that address why and/or how MMP can not be implemented we will give those presentations the priority. Thanks! Jorge [cid:image001.jpg@01CDED7A.55A4A920] ________________________________ ________________________________ <="" p=""> ________________________________ <="" p=""> ________________________________ <="" p=""> ________________________________ <="" p=""> ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 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
Attachment:
image001.jpg
Description: image001.jpg
