RE: [EFM][EFM-P2P] 100Mbps P2P over SMF
Daniel -
Probably because you sent your "Unsubscribe" to the list address rather
than the list server's address. In order to successfully unsubscribe, you
need to send a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and include your
unsubscribe commands in the body of the message, in the form
unsubscribe list-name my-email-address. Refer back to the introductory
message that majordomo sent you when you first subscribed if this is at all
unclear.
Regards,
Tony
At 14:44 28/11/2001 +0800, Daniel Liu wrote:
>Does anyone could tell me why am I still in the EFM discussion group even
>I had unsubscribed already ?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ingvar
>Fröroth (ETX)
>Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 7:13 PM
>To: 'Horne, David M'; Ulf Jönsson F (ERA); stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
>stds-802-3-efm-p2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [EFM][EFM-P2P] 100Mbps P2P over SMF
>
>
>
>
>Dave, you are bringing up several of the important issues in dense, short
>distance topologies; I think that's good and clearly needed for EFM to
>become the overall success we all anticipate.
>A detail we may need to take care of; if we are considering for EFM to
>make use of an existing 802.3 100Mbps PMD, we need to find out how EFM OAM
>can be put into it (or on top of it).
>
>In my opinion, we should also think of 100Mbps P2P in sparse topologies,
>and how it would satisfy [fairly] long home runs. Ideally, we should
>gather the required data & cost estimates etc., to calculate what this
>suggested new PMD can do in just about any network scenario.
>
>Respectfully,
>Ingvar Froroth
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Horne, David M [mailto:david.m.horne@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:37 PM
> > To: 'Ulf Jönsson F (ERA)'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
> > stds-802-3-efm-p2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [EFM][EFM-P2P] 100Mbps P2P over SMF
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Ulf, I would be interested in 100M, particularly in the
> > context of the
> > local legs of active architectures and the HALF-PON
> > architecture I brought
> > up a while back
> > (http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/email/msg00357.html ).
> > It has some similarities to your recent presentation at:
> > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/efm/public/nov01/jonsson_
> > 1_1101.pdf
> >
> > We will run into the same multiple-distance-support questions
> > as 1G P2P.
> > 100M seems most interesting to me--in the context of an active
> > architecture--with a long distribution fiber at 1G, and short
> > feeders on the
> > local legs to each ONU at 100M (or, 1G broadcast-and-select passive
> > downstream, and 100M upstream to an active node for
> > HALF-PON). How short is
> > short, is the question. Maybe 300m; maybe 500m; maybe 1-2km.
> > Inexpensive is
> > key. The INTENT should be to serve short feeders in this
> > range, rather than
> > trying to be all things to all people. The distance extension
> > premium may be
> > too high to justify the cost per user of the longer distance
> > capability as
> > an umbrella solution.
> >
> > If the network layout needs longer multi-km feeders, a different
> > architecture (or proprietary distance-extended 100M) would be
> > used. 300m
> > serves a high percentage of medium- to high-density
> > residential applications
> > at 16:1 aggregation. Possibly (haven't run any numbers on
> > this) 64:1 fits
> > with 1km. If the cost to increase from 300m to 1km is only a
> > few bucks per
> > user, then it makes sense for 1km to be the goal. If it
> > costs, say, 30 bucks
> > to go from 300m to 1-2km capability, it will be hard to
> > justify anything but
> > 2 separate specs. 30 bucks times zillions of users is a lot
> > of Cap-ex that
> > goes wasted for a network operator whose layout logistics
> > dictate deployment
> > at 16:1 / 300m, but has to pay the premium for the
> > capabilities to reach 1km
> > because the spec says so. Compare the costs of 100BaseSX
> > versus 100BaseFX,
> > for example (which is much greater than 30 bucks).
> >
> > However, these are all points that would be addressed, and no doubt
> > resolved, AFTER the general concept of 100Mbps P2P is
> > approved. I am in
> > favor of the general concept, and believe it meets the 5
> > criteria using the
> > same arguments as the current set of P2P and P2MP.
> > Architecturally, active
> > topologies were left out of EFM for some reason. They are a natural
> > complement to the current set of supported architectures, and
> > should be
> > included.
> >
> > --Dave Horne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ulf Jönsson F (ERA) [mailto:Ulf.F.Jonsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:54 AM
> > To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-p2p@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject: [EFM][EFM-P2P] 100Mbps P2P over SMF
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On the January meeting we will make a presentation on the 5
> > criteria for
> > 100Mbps P2P over SMF. Many of you have already indicated your
> > interest and
> > in order to have a broad acceptance of the proposal we invite
> > all of you who
> > would like to support, contribute or participate in this
> > presentation.
> >
> > Please respond to me if you are interested. We intend to have
> > a first draft
> > presentation during next week that we can discuss off-line.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Ulf Jönsson
> > Ericsson
> > +46 70 2673313
> >
> >