RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
Glen,
Service providers bring the customers' traffic back to an access point that
becomes the revenue generation point that creates the billable
revenue. Having been with a service provider for over 10 years, I have
never seen service deployment that you described in situation
"c". Situation "c" is more of an "enterprise" type of deployment not a
"commercial" one. I believe that situation "c" is out of scope of this TF.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 12:06 PM 11/26/2001 -0800, glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Roy,
>
>You are right that both enterprise and campus networks (which are LANs) are
>out of scope of this TF.
>I however, want to clarify in what context they were mentioned on the
>reflector.
>
>EFM is charged with defining "access network". But when we talk about
>functional requirements of access networks, we realize that different
>applications have different requirements.
>
>a. Residential access network - not much traffic from user to user (ONU to
>ONU), but downstream broadcasting is important (video broadcasting). And
>thus it was stated that a combination of point-to-point and shared emulation
>(P2P+SE) makes sense.
>
>b. Business access network (what sometimes referred to as enterprise access
>network) - no downstream broadcasting video is needed, and so downstream
>broadcasting is not important. Also not much traffic between ONUs. This is
>the case for P2P emulation only.
>
>c. Campus access network - the difference from business access is that all
>tailend nodes belong to the same administrative domain. There can be a fair
>amount of out-bound traffic as well as ONU-to-ONU traffic. There is a fair
>number of lowtech campuses that don't have or don't want to have their own
>IT department to maintain a campus network. This is a good place for P2MP
>network with a shared emulation. It is still an access network, but better
>optimized for ONU-to-ONU traffic.
>
>It is not up to the standard to decide in what environment the access
>network is to be used. But, standard can allow multitude of configurations
>(as it does for LANs) that each vendor will make decision on.
>
>Glen
>
>
> > Howard,
> >
> > I am seeing several references to a "enterprise" type of "campus"
> > deployment as a target for P2MP optical services. I may be
> > mistaken, but I
> > thought that this TF was working on support of "subscription
> > networks"
> > which, by my understanding, are commercial service access
> > networks, not
> > enterprise networks. Am I mistaken? If I am not, then that
> > would make the
> > need to support enterprise campus networks somewhat out of scope.
> >
> > I hate to see a lot of effort put into trying to support
> > campus networks
> > for ubiquitous shared access over optical media. From my experience,
> > ubiquitous shared networks have an effective utilization of
> > about 30%,
> > depending on the number of nodes on the media. The support and
> > maintenance of that type of topology in the enterprise campus
> > environment
> > would be very similar to the old "coax" system of years ago.
> > At the lower
> > utilization, an the high maintenance labor costs, the higher
> > cost of the
> > optical media would not be cost effective. I don't see much
> > of a market
> > for that type of deployment.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> >