RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Pat,
10 Gig would be an upgrade path in both cases, right? :-)
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly, Pat [mailto:pat.kelly@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 3:24 PM
> To: 'mike.obrien@alloptic.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
>
>
>
> I'm assuming GE switches with 10GE uplinks will be available
> once 802.3ae's
> work is complete.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> N. Patrick Kelly
> Director of Engineering
> Networking Components Division
> Intel Corporation
> (916)854-2955
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:mike.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 1:18 PM
> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
>
>
> Pat,
> P2P may offer higher bandwidth from the subscriber to
> the CO than
> PON, however it must perform some aggregation to it's
> upstream provider. A
> P2P box with 32 1000Mbps subscriber links will not have 32 x
> 1000Mbps of
> upstream links. PON does the 'aggregation' at the splitting
> point. Overall,
> the PON subscriber will see essentialy the same bandwidth as
> P2P subscriber.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly, Pat [mailto:pat.kelly@xxxxxxxxx]
>
> Bob,
>
> Sorry if I'm missing something. I understand that PON
> systems can burst to
> higher rates, but a 32 subscriber, one wavelength/direction
> PON should only
> be able to provide 1000Mbps/32 or ~30Meg/subscriber (assuming 100%
> efficiency). This is much closer to VDSL than P2P at
> 1000Mbps/subscriber.
>
> Of course, PON has significant advantages over VDSL (higher
> aggregate data
> rate, upgradeability, video broadcast capability, etc.), so
> it should be a
> very compelling comparison.
>
> Pat
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> N. Patrick Kelly
> Director of Engineering
> Networking Components Division
> Intel Corporation
> (916)854-2955
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lund, Bob [mailto:blund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:29 AM
> To: 'Kelly, Pat'; 'Francois D. Menard';
> gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> CarlisleRS@corning.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Cc: DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx; CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
>
> I don't think PON and VDSL provide similar levels of bandwidth.
>
> Commercial VDSL systems feed curbside nodes with 155 - 622Mbps and
> distribute asymetric bandwidth with a max of around 25Mbps per set of
> twisted pair wires. Nodes typically serve around 30
> subscribers. I've not
> seen any developments that suggest that the 25Mbps max will go up
> substantially.
>
> Commercial PON systems provide 155 - 1000Mbps to a passive
> optical splitter
> that, in turn, feeds up to 32 subscribers, each with 155 - 1000Mbps of
> bandwidth. Bandwidth management protocols enable service providers to
> control how much of the aggregate PON bandwidth is used by
> any subscriber.
> PONs also provide greater upstream bandwidth than VDSL
> systems. PONs can
> employ higher clock rate optics and/or CWDM to increase the amount of
> bandwidth to higher rates, e.g. 4 wavelengths would provide 4x the
> bandwidth.
>
> Bob Lund
> Chief Technical Officer
> Optical Solutions Inc.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kelly, Pat [SMTP:pat.kelly@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:13 PM
> > To: 'Francois D. Menard'; gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > CarlisleRS@corning.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > Cc: DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx; CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
> >
> >
> > PON vs. VDSL seems to be a more logical comparison than P2P vs. VDSL
> > because
> > PON and VDSL provide similar levels of service, i.e. bandwidth.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > N. Patrick Kelly
> > Director of Engineering
> > Networking Components Division
> > Intel Corporation
> > (916)854-2955
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francois D. Menard [mailto:f.menard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:40 AM
> > To: gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx; CarlisleRS@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > Cc: DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx; CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
> >
> >
> > > As you can see from the graph, the PTP vs PTMP costs are
> sensitive to
> > distance - SBC calculated PTMP is close to the same at
> short distance, and
> > 50% the cost at >5 km. I'd like to know more about what is
> behind SBC's
> > data (if it includes equipment costs, I think so). I
> noticed that neither
> > you nor Martin Adams mentioned distance; an important variable.
> >
> > I would like to know to which extent, cost of P2P has been
> found to be
> > more
> > extensive, considering that active equipments could be
> installed in the
> > same
> > manner than for VDSL in the street-end cabinets. I believe
> that OCCAM is
> > doing this for xDSL. Aggregating residential P2P on giant
> fibre bundles
> > may
> > work in Japan due to house densities, but it is more complex in
> > North-America, however still remains a serious possibility. I would
> > rather
> > see P2P compared to VDSL before P2P is compared to PON.
> >
> > Fundamentally, PON will be subject to the same myriad of
> problems that
> > open
> > access on cable modem plant is subjected to today, which
> are high-cost
> > terminals, which can potentially screw up your neighbor's
> service were
> > they
> > going to become defective. This has important implications on
> > architecture
> > and policy for third party access. Suffice it to say that
> such problems
> > are
> > easily solved in P2P, and that I do not believe at all in
> comparing costs,
> > while forgetting about estimating the costs of implementing
> third party
> > access.
> >
> > -=Francois=-
> >
>