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

RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th




Ariel,
A FTTH PON upstream capacity requirement is in the range of 155 to 622 Mbps
by our analysis, 150 Mbps may be enough for a long time, 300 Mbps among 32
users with flexible allocation is probably good for many years/decades. So,
very inefficient upstream at the linerate of 1.2 Gbps is not a huge concern
for residential applications. 

I would like continue to stress the SBC RFP requirement of supporting
residential access loops to 20 km. A single ONT type not two ONT types
(short and long reach) is a strong preference.

We have met with optical component companies about the PON optical banana
issue for over 4 years and I consistently hear about too many variations in
their product lines and not enough volume of parts.  

Currently, I support the vision of a grand unified solution of a single set
of timing specs that can spur at least one or two big company's with mass
production capability to make PON PMD. Compromise to Option C seems to help
the uncertainty of what PON we and other operators may buy. Heck we may find
one type of PON ideal for a data only, Ethernet switch blade application for
business data and another PON protocol ideal for a full service residential
FTTH or FTTCurb/Cabinet.  That may be a strong  argument for Option C so the
optics suppliers only make one PON optics/drivers that meet both GPON and
IEEE PON timing requirements.

Hope to see you in Vancouver, SBC would like PON timing and other questions
in EFM resolved to move this standard forward at light speed.

Best Regards,
-Kent



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ariel Maislos [mailto:ariel.maislos@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:51 PM
> To: 'Mccammon, Kent G.'; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
> Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> 
> 
> Kent,
> 
> The service delivery is not affected in any way by the PMD. 
> I'll elaborate based on your examples: Voice/TI services - 
> service quality is affected by behavior of packetizer and 
> streamer. When you poll the ONU every millisecond you will 
> receive the same service quality regardless of the PMD used. 
> Simply one PMD will give you 96.8% utilization, and the other 
> 95.6%. Multicast video - this is a service in the downstream 
> direction that is not affected by the upstream bursting behavior.
> 
> The efficiancy comparisons are valid regardless of the 
> service. TDM for example is packetized by protocol ZZZ. 
> Protocol ZZZ has the same overheads and efficiencies in all cases.
> 
> What we see is that all PMD proposals answer the same service 
> requirements. The customer would see the same thing. The only 
> observable effect is the maximal UPSTREAM utilization.
> 
> The only questions remaining for the service providers to 
> answer is can they make more money from the network with the 
> extra 1.2% of bandwidth?
> 
> Regards,
> 	Ariel
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Mccammon, Kent G.
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 17:45
> > To: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; 
> > Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Tom,
> > Since I have a conflict with the call tomorrow and I am
> > interested in this decision, here are some questions.
> > 
> > 1)Do any of the options for PON timing impact the delivery of
> > services such as toll quality voice, a T1, or multicast 
> > video? We had this concern previously and the answer 
> > previously was claimed to be only an efficiency hit for loose 
> > timing. Are the modeling assumptions to compare efficiency 
> > valid for TDM services or is that not a consideration in this 
> > debate to date? 2)The negotiation of timing parameters rather 
> > than a tight specification have any impact on future 
> > interoperability testing?  If we ever decide to test 
> > interoperability of EPON OLT and ONT, can a lab testing 
> > system be reasonably built to test compliance to a 
> > specification for OLT/ONT timing for the various options 
> > under debate? 
> > 3)Do operating temperature swings have an impact on timing 
> > options. Is their reason to add extra margin or extra 
> > negotiation time of timing parameters due to temperature 
> > variations? What about cold start in cold temperatures, that 
> > was an issue for power levels, does it also impact the 
> > electronics of the PMD?
> > 
> > Comment: As an advocate of PON technologies I echo my earlier
> > comments about striving for common PON PMD to get the volume 
> > started in today's economy.  I am optimistic a compromise can 
> > be found in January. Thanks, -Kent
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:12 AM
> > > To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
> > > Subject: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hello Again,
> > > 
> > > Attacted two possible approaches to this discussion forming two 
> > > decision trees. Glen and I worked on these I I did not 
> have a chance 
> > > to co-ordinate with him and refine to one slide.  The 
> first slide is 
> > > mine and I would like to start here as it allows us to generate 
> > > values without having to make decisions. When the values 
> are agreed 
> > > upon, we can work towards the decision and perhaps this 
> is simpler 
> > > with the values we have.
> > > 
> > > If this does not work, we can try the seconf slide, 
> Glen's approach, 
> > > which is a more top-down attack.
> > > 
> > > Talk to you tomorrow
> > > 
> > > Tom
> > > 
> > >  <<PON Timing Decision Tree.ppt>>
> > > 
> > > Hello All,
> > > 
> > > Items to Be Covered
> > > 
> > > 1)  Determine the exact meaning of the terms "Fixed Value" and 
> > > 'Upper Bound" in terms
> > >     of their use for PMD timing parameters.
> > > 
> > > 2)  Try assign placeholder values for all of the options
> > > 
> > > 3)  Are these values fixed or bounded for the different options.
> > > 
> > > 4)  Other items
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Tom
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>