Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_EXTND_EPON] Action items for the next F2F meeting



Dear Marek,

Could you explain the difference between SG and TF, especially in terms of what you can do and you are not allowed to do?

Regards,

Susumu Nishihara, NTT

(2011/11/30 6:27), Marek Hajduczenia wrote:
Dear colleagues,



We have had a very successful meeting in Atlanta two weeks ago and I would
like to take this opportunity to thank once again everyone involved in these
two long days of working on documentation, proposed responses to 5 Critters,
Objectives and PAR. Now, with that part of our work over, it is time to
start looking into organization of the time we have been allocated at the
upcoming F2F meeting in January 2012.



You may have heard that our motion to form the Extended EPON Task Force will
not enter into 802 EC agenda up to shortly before March 2012 plenary
meeting, which means that both in January 2012 and March 2012 we will be
meeting as a Study Group. Our first official Task Force meeting will take
place then only in May 2012. However, I would like us to take full advantage
of the time we have and progress work for the future Task Force as much as
possible during these upcoming two meetings. For this purpose, I would like
to make call for contributions in the following areas:



1.       Proposal(s) to address the following sub-objective: “Provide
physical layer specifications for 1G-EPON supporting a downstream channel
insertion loss of 29dB, compatible with PR(X)30 upstream channel insertion
loss;”, including among the others:

a.       PMD specifications for ONU

b.      PMD specification for OLT

c.       Analysis of coexistence between new PMD and 10G-EPON PMDs
(confirmation that such coexistence is guaranteed)

2.       Proposal(s) to address the following set of questions regarding the
second set of sub-objectives i.e. “Provide physical layer specifications for
1G-EPON supporting a split ratio of at least 1:64 at a distance of at least
20 km; for 10G-EPON, supporting a split ratio of at least 1:64 at a distance
of at least 20 km;”

a.       Target power budget value (32dB? 35dB? More?)

b.      Method to achieve such extended power budget: PMD or PBEx

3.       PBEx architecture and interface specification proposals:

a.       PBEx in 802.3 and 802.1 Ethernet architecture of internetworked
devices

b.      Parameter specification for individual interfaces

c.       Managed vs unmanaged PBEx solutions

d.      Impact on EPON MPCP and PCS specifications (timing requirements,
jitter etc.)

4.       10G-EPON FEC gain in upstream: demonstration of practical
measurement results for existing devices to give us a better idea on the
power budget margin provided by the FEC adopted by 10G-EPON in 802.3av

5.       Target distance / split ratios of interest for operators, together
with suggestions of scenarios for exemplary power budgets to be placed in an
informative annex (if such an annex is developed, depending on the decision
of the future Task Force)

6.       (low priority) Organization of draft



When making proposals, especially for point 2, please bear in mind the other
objectives we have approved i.e. “Maintain  coexistence  among  1G-EPON  and
10G-EPON (i.e. support the same loss budget classes for 1G-EPON and
10G-EPON).” and “Changes  to  be  confined  to  the  PMD  layer;  PCS  and
MPCP are to be reused as is.”, which will be used in the future by the Task
Force to eliminate any proposals which suggest e.g. different loss budgets
for 1G-EPON and 10G-EPON, or changes to EPON MAC, as violating the approved
objectives of the project.



In terms of item number 3 – given that PBEx is a new device concept, I
anticipate the need to provide a new set of interface parameters, depending
on the proposed device architecture, its mode of operation etc. I hope that
the proposals suggesting specific PBEx architectures would take that into
consideration, listing physical layer parameters which need to be
standardized to guarantee interoperability between individual devices i.e.
PBEx and OLT and PBEx and ONU.



Please note that because of the status of our Study Group, we will not be
able to make selection of technical proposals, select baselines for future
Task Force, develop draft or take motions binding for the future Task Force.
We should, however, use the time of the following two F2F meetings to build
consensus around specific solutions, collect material for the future Task
Force’s consideration and organize it in the best way possible.



Thank you for your consideration and respective contributions

Marek Hajduczenia, PhD

Chair, Extended EPON Study Group, http://www.ieee802.org/3/EXTND_EPON/

ZTE Portugal
Edifício Amoreiras Plaza,
Rua Carlos Alberto da Mota Pinto, nr. 9 - 6 A,
1070-374 Lisbon, Portugal

Office: +351 213 700 090
Fax: + 351 213 813 349
Mobile: +351 961 121 851 (Portugal)











--
西原 晋
NTTアクセスサービスシステム研究所
239-0847 神奈川県横須賀市光の丘1-1
電話: 046-859-2124
ファクス: 046-859-5513