Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria for EPoC - Presentation for Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Jorge, Bill, Doug,
Where we are right now as the Task Force, with no PHY model, discussing
(fiercely, I must say) modes of its operation, etc., I think sticking the
numbers, no matter how tentative, is just premature. I am not trying to
lecture anybody on the process here - just expressing my personal opinion.
We can certainly agree these are the performance factors to look at, and I
applaud Bill bringing them to our attention in such a valuable contribution.
However, not knowing any basic facts about the PHY, not being able to
examine with any level of confidence any aspects of its operation, affecting
the jitter, delay and frequency/timing transfer functions, agreeing to these
specific numbers does nothing to progress work any further. These are just
numbers, and they will be revised at least several times when we start
developing the PHY details. Rushing to nail them down does not help us in
any way.
Furthermore, the numbers provided by Bill are E2E numbers (NNI to UNI) and
include so much more than is within the scope or within the control of this
Task Force. Consider that for these to be of any value, they have to
consider NNI to UNI connection, that involves 802.1 layers sitting above
802.3 PHY, queues, software running on the given station etc., most of which
are not even within 802 scope, let alone 802.3 scope. Picking a number
effectively turns it into a product spec (requirement for connected boxes),
something 802.3 does not do as indicated many times before.
That said, I think the best thing we can / should do right now is take in
the Frequency transfer Error and ToD Error parameters as evaluation criteria
(we should study the effect of PHY on these parameters once we have PHY to
work on), but examine them for EPoC layers only when we have a PHY details
to work on. Rather than spending time on picking a number, we should focus
on making sure that whatever we do supports time transfer (802.3bf support
from day one I have been bringing over and over again) within layers we
define and leave the rest to groups that have developed transfer mechanisms
in the past (802.1AS - this mechanism should work on EPoC as well as on EPON
if we do the PHY well).
So, Jorge, while agree with you on the scope of the ad-hoc, I read it a bit
differently - it is not supposed to provide product requirements (what boxes
are supposed to do in NNI-UNI connection mode, how many LLIDs they need,
etc.), but focus on items we do control (loop timing, station registration &
re-registration time, grant structure, transmit and receive delay,
implementation complexity, relative cost, etc.) and convert them into
evaluation requirements for any proposals that will come in for baselining
(I hope) later this month.
Thank you
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 04:37
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria
for EPoC - Presentation for Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Yeap, I agree that 802 has been incredibly successful in developing Ethernet
and all its variants over the years. We have all benefited extensively by
the work 802 has done.
And EPoC should not be an exception to this success. We should all make sure
of that as we develop the extensions to the 802.3 standard for EPoC.
There is a lot to be said for keeping things simple. I'm just concerned that
in doing so the outcome not end up being a PHY that is less efficient than
other alternatives, such as DOCSIS.
As we develop the EPoC System and Device specs at CL we can include
functionality above the PHY, but for some of it we need to have the
appropriate hooks in the PHY.
Anyway, you are completely right in that a great deal of the success of
Ethernet is due to its simplicity and scalability over the years.
Thanks!
Jorge
----- Original Message -----
From: Jones, Douglas
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:00 PM
To: Salinger, Jorge; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria
for EPoC - Presentation for Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Think of it this way.
Let IEEE 802 do what it is good at, which is Ethernet. Thank-goodness 802
has done what they have done with Ethernet over the years. Talk about
monumental, could you imagine a world without Etherent ?
Let CableLabs do what it is good at in creating interface specification.
We should allow each forum to do what they are best at, without breaking
either process.
dj
-----Original Message-----
From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 7:15 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria
for EPoC - Presentation for Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Marek and all,
I just want to make an observation with respect to the objective of this
ad-hoc, and make a plead to how we work together to achieve each other's
goals.
In the Email thread below, you stated "a valuable contribution, but adopting
such requirements without even knowing if they are achievable, is at least
premature".
But, the objective of this ad-hoc is precisely to establish requirements
that the final solution must support in order to be useful. This is
precisely, I think, what Bill is doing: define a service requirement for
EPoC. If we wait until we know what EPoC can do and support, how do we know
that we designed what was intended. There are and will be other such
requirements that EPoC must support in order to be useful as a technology
for MSOs, which in the end are the ones that will buy and deploy this
equipment.
I mention this because I've struggled myself with making the point that we
don't have precise objectives for EPoC. We have the objectives defined
during the Study Group phase, but those are very high-level and almost
strictly to get approval without controversy. But there are many other
things that we want EPoC to be able to do, which are not being brought up as
requirement for multiple reasons.
As an MSO, I'm not used to this approach. We normally define very clear
service requirements up-front, and then start the spec process. Instead,
this almost seems to be the exact opposite.
And, while I'm at it, another thing I hear constantly is "let's keep EPoC
simple, like Ethernet is". Well, that works well for most, maybe all, the
applications of Ethernet where the standard defines the medium, etc. That's
not the case here, where the standard will need to work in the most
efficient way possible in the media that exists (i.e., the HFC network and
the capacity allocated within it). I agree that this won't result in the
most cost effective equipment possible to implement, but it will result in
something that is deployable and is the most cost effective from a service
deployment perspective.
I guess we still have a ways to go to culturally and technically educate
each other. We will all have to learn to compromise more than we are used to
perhaps. As for myself, I'm trying to do that. But in addition I have so far
really learned that this is a very challenging process, but likely will be
an equally rewarding effort.
Best regards,
Jorge
----- Original Message -----
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 06:24 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria
for EPoC - Presentation for Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Thank you David,
For those interested in more details, please look at the presentation on
.3bf given already to this TF in March 2012 (link:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/epoc/public/mar12/hajduczenia_01_0312.p
df). Note the persistent lack of the word "time stamp" in this document as
well as in 802.3-2012, Clause 90. We do not do any time stamping in 802.3bf.
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@xxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 23:14
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria
for EPoC - Presentation for Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Hi Marek,
I believe that your description of the operation IEEE Std 802.3bf-2011 -
which now can be found in Clause 90 'Ethernet support for time
synchronization protocols' of IEEE Std 802.3-2012 - is entirely correct. As
stated in subclause 90.2 'Overview', 'The goal of this clause is to provide
an accurate indication of the transmission and reception initiation times of
all packets, as required to support various time synchronization protocols,
e.g., IEEE Std 1588-2008, and IEEE Std 802.1AS.'.
As stated in subclause IEEE Std 802.3-2012 subclause 90.7 'Data delay
measurement', 'The transmit path data delay is measured from the input of
the beginning of the SFD at the xMII to its presentation by the PHY to the
MDI. The receive path data delay is measured from the input of the beginning
of the SFD at the MDI to its presentation by the PHY to the xMII.'.
PHY registers provided maximum transmit path data delay, minimum transmit
path data delay, maximum receive path data delay and minimum receive path
data delay (for example see IEEE Std 802.3-2012 subclauses 45.2.1.104
through 45.2.1.106) which allow the calculation of the transmit and receive
path data delay variation. The critical value is this delay variation - not
the absolute delays. The greater the variation - these lower the accuracy of
the time synchronization.
Any proposal - such as the proposals we were talking about on today's call -
will have to be evaluated in respect to transmit and receive path data delay
variation to determine the accuracy of the time synchronization it will
provide.
Best regards,
David
-----
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
Sent: 08 January 2013 22:05
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria
for EPoC - Presentation for Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Bill,
If I recall correctly, 802.3bf does not deal with time stamping, especially
not with MPCP time stamping. All it does it provides indication of passage
of packets through the xMII, which can be then correlated with transmission
of selected packets across PHY. That combined with information on PHY delay
stored in 802.3bf registers provides enough information to calculate precise
residence time for the station.
So, I am confused what is really meant by "using a timestamping mechanism
for MPCP packets over EPoC similar to the method described in both 802.3bf
and 802.1as Clause 13". I think there is some misunderstanding as to what
802.3bf provides and misconception that it is a specification competitive to
802.1as (which it is not, it complements 802.1as as much as 1588v2).
Marek
From: Bill Powell [mailto:bill.powell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 21:40
To: Marek Hajduczenia
Cc: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria for EPoC -
Presentation for Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Marek,
Thanks for the review and comments. I agree, we have not proven yet that we
can meet this criteria, especially the time transfer error criteria on slide
17. However, due to industry requirements for MBH, and competing
technologies (GPON) that can provide even lower time transfer error
performance, I think we need to be aiming at architecting EPoC to try to
meet the goals in this presentation. Having a goal in this area will help
us when we start comparing potential implementations.
Note that on Slide 17 the time transfer error performance is labeled as
tentative, which in my mind would depend on physical limitations of what we
do in the MAC<->PHY layer for EPoC.
I agree that we will need to use a timestamping method for MPCP packets
described in 802.3bf. I discussed the differences between 802.3bf and
802.1as (the protocol for MPCP counter synchronization between the EPON OLT
and EPON ONU) with Geoff Garner at our last meeting in San Antonio. Geoff
mentioned that the timestamping method in 802.1as Clause 13 was essentially
similar to the MPCP timestamping criteria in 802.3bf, and the reason that
802.1as did not refer to 802.3bf directly is that 802.3bf was not completed
when 802.1as was balloted.
So, the intent here is to propose using a timestamping mechanism for MPCP
packets over EPoC similar to the method described in both 802.3bf and
802.1as Clause 13. I intentionally left off this level of
802.1as-vs-802.3bf detail in this presentation, as I thought it would not be
beneficial to the overall goal of:
(1) presenting a system level analysis relative to current MBH and CES
timing requirements, and
(2) propose specific Eval criteria for EPoC to support these requirements.
Regards,
Bill
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
RE: [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria for EPoC - Presentation for
Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Date:
Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:13:46 +0000
From:
Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
To:
'Bill Powell' <bill.powell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bill,
My two cents on that would be simple - a valuable contribution, but adopting
such requirements without even knowing if they are achievable, is at least
premature. We do not have any working models that would allow to estimate
whether such stringent requirements are achievable.
Furthermore, despite multiple indications from my side, the support for IEEE
Std 802.3bf is being still ignored. Without it, I do not know how you can
even think of getting to the level of precision you're suggesting. The delay
through each layer in the EPoC PHY needs to be known if we can ever hope to
get 1588v2 to the precision level you're showing.
Regards
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Powell [mailto:bill.powell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 20:30
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Synchronization Eval Criteria for EPoC - Presentation
for Jan. 8 Eval Criteria Ad Hoc Call
Hello All,
I've attached a presentation that I plan to present during the Eval Criteria
ad hoc call tomorrow (Jan. 9). Some of you may have seen most of this
presentation in a different forum, but I'm bringing this into 802.3bn
through the Eval criteria Ad Hoc for further discussion, with a recommended
performance limit for time and frequency transfer error over the EPoC link
on Slide 17 (new slide).
If the group thinks that it would be useful to present to the whole 802.3bn
group, I can also submit it for presentation for the upcoming Phoenix or a
future 802.3bn meeting.
Regards,
Bill
--
Bill Powell
Alcatel-Lucent
Fixed Access Systems Engineering
2301 Sugar Bush Road
Raleigh, NC 27612
bill.powell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(O) 919-850-6462
(Cell) 919-614-3225
________________________________________________________________________
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="">
________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________
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