On Dec 14, 2011, at 9:13 PM, "Liu, Alex" <
alexliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Let's dig Hesham out from underneath the pile of commentary that followed
> his remark.
>
> I think I know where he was trying to go.
>
> If EPoC is serious about targeting the China market, I would highly
> suggest that we consider an optional TDD mode of operation.
>
> One of the reasons that EoC solutions such as HomePlug and MoCA have found
> wide acceptance in China is that they slot easily into widely varying
> spectrum allocations here. To be specific, they are TDD. This is abetted
> by the fact that the vast majority of cable is passive (N+0).
>
> This is direct feedback from SARFT. China has a penchant for TDD systems,
> if 3G and 4G are any indication.
>
> Returning to the topic of interoperability, I agree that it is outside the
> scope of this effort. However, coexistence is absolutely fair game,
> whether with DOCSIS in N. America or EoC in China. TDD would go a long way
> toward easing that path.
>
> Alex
>
> On 12/15/11 12:17 AM, "Eugene Dai" <
Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Talking about interoperability first and foremost is for EPOC to
>> interrupt with EPON that in turn requires minimum change to EPON
>> protocols.
>>
>> As far as backward compatibility is concerned, backward compatibility
>> with HomePlug is out of question. EPOC and EOC are different standards.
>> Even within various EOC implementations, such as HiNOC, Homeplug, MoCA
>> etc., there is no interoperability or backward compatibility between
>> them. Require all these will defocus the WG from the very beginning. I
>> agree with Matt that we should be focused.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eugene
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:
m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:47 PM
>> To:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
>>
>> That's not to say that some enterprising vendor couldn't come up with a
>> solution that could do just that; however, I would be inclined (like
>> Kevin) to perhaps put that out of scope for this specific group. As has
>> been mentioned before, focus is likely to be critical to our success.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On 12/13/11 8:47 PM, "Noll, Kevin" <
kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Ugh!
>>>
>>> Hesham, I don't like where you are headed with that last comment about
>>> HomePlug, CM, etc.
>>>
>>> I assume for now that your comment was rhetorical. I don't think I could
>>> support development inside this group of a system that would be able to
>>> interoperate with all those other standards.
>>>
>>> --kan--
>>> --
>>> Kevin A. Noll, CCIE
>>> Principal Engineer
>>> Time Warner Cable
>>> 13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
>>> Herndon, VA 20171
>>> o:
+1-703-345-3666
>>> m:
+1-717-579-4738
>>> AIM: knollpoi
>>>
>>> From: Hesham ElBakoury
>>> <
Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>>> Reply-To: Hesham ElBakoury
>>> <
Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:03:19 -0500
>>> To:
>>> "
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> R
>>> G>"
>>> <
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> R
>>> G>>
>>> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> Comments below.
>>>
>>> Hesham
>>>
>>> From: Mark Laubach [mailto:
laubach@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:59 AM
>>> To:
>>>
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> G
>>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> And for others that have joined the EPoC Study Group email discussion
>>> list. Welcome!
>>>
>>> There are a number of things that are in the Call for Interest (CFI)
>>> presentation as guidance items. The CFI is available at:
>>>
>>>
http://www.ieee802.org/3/epoc/public/nov11/index.html
>>>
>>> My initial answers. Note: The SG contribution and consensus process will
>>> have more on these as its official answers:
>>> 1) Open for SG discussion, flexible with cable operator initial
>>> deployment and changes. As an SG effort, we¹ll probably need to evaluate
>>> from 5MHz to 2.8GHz (there are taps in the market that run up 2.8GHzŠ.)
>>> 2) and 3) strong preference for ³as is² but cable operator requirements
>>> followed by SG work to see how it plays out
>>> 4) open for discussion, but there is the strong notion of being able to
>>> work ³around² existing services without disruption
>>> 5) EPoC is a new service that should be compatible with existing services
>>> and ³on the wire² signaling. While specific signaling mathematics will
>>> be a topic for the Task Force, the SG will likely have some
>>> guidance/objectives at conclusion going into the TF.
>>> HEB> If EPoC is a service then it is more than just a PHY and therefore,
>>> as Matt mentioned we need to study the interactions between the PHY and
>>> different components of EPoC system to achieve the intended service
>>> and performance.
>>> HEB> I am assuming that by ³signaling on the wire² you mean the
>>> modulation used by the PHY (e.g. OFDM, wavelet OFDM, QAM, Š. Etc). In
>>> this respect, by compatibility with existing services do you mean that
>>> EPoC
>>> as a service needs to support new PHY and existing PHYs ? i.e. Does CMC
>>> need to find out if at the other end of the wire it is connected to CNU,
>>> CM, or say HomePlugAV CPE and then uses the appropriate
>>> PHY modulation and appropriate MAC ?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> From: John Santhoff [mailto:
jsanthoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 9:05 PM
>>> To:
>>>
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> G
>>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
>>>
>>> I'm new to this group so please forgive me if these questions have
>>> already been answered. If so where can I find the document?
>>>
>>> 1) What are the frequencies to be used for Downstream and Upstream?
>>>
>>> 2) Is the goal to use the existing infrastructure "As-Is" or do we have
>>> the option to upgrade equipment?
>>>
>>> 3) Is the goal to maintain existing amplifier spacing?
>>>
>>> 4) Is the plan to maintain the 6/8 MHz channel spacing?
>>>
>>> 5) What about legacy signaling? Is that being maintained?
>>>
>>> -John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Hesham ElBakoury
>>> <
Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Howard,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have few questions regarding the Operator requirements (pertaining to
>>> physical layer):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Service coexistence issues and criteria
>>>
>>> Services to be provided over EPoC
>>>
>>> HEB> Do you mean residential and business services or video, IPTV, VoIP,
>>> data services ?
>>>
>>> and how they will evolve over time
>>>
>>> Business vs residential services
>>>
>>> (will they exist on the same network?)
>>>
>>> Asymmetry vs. symmetry
>>>
>>> Existing cable plant characteristics
>>>
>>> Architectures
>>>
>>> (Node+0 "passive", Node+N [N=1-?], Complete HFC, MxU)
>>>
>>> Amplifier characteristics and considerations that will effect the
>>> PHY
>>>
>>> Cable & passives characteristics
>>>
>>> Typical size of cable plant
>>>
>>> HEB> I am not sure how you measure the size ? (number of home passed,
>>> size of coverage area, number of nodes, Š etc).
>>>
>>> Subscribers passed
>>>
>>> Number and size of taps
>>>
>>> Changes to cable plant characteristics over time
>>>
>>> (e.g. passive and active element changes, any use of bypasses?)
>>>
>>> Spectral allocation
>>>
>>> and how it changes over time
>>>
>>> Which frequencies are amplified and which are passive
>>>
>>> ` What spectrum will be allocated for EPoC initially,
>>>
>>> and how will that change over time
>>>
>>> Regional differences for changes?
>>>
>>> Functional Assumptions and Impairments
>>>
>>> DOCSIS 3.0 has already characterized in CM-SP-PHYv3.0-I05-070803,
>>> Chapter 5,
>>>
>>> and in CM-SP-DRFI-I12-111117, Chapter 5, for "in
>>> amplified" regions of
>>>
>>> cable. For both "in amplified" and "passive" EPoC
>>> considerations, are
>>>
>>> there any additonal functional assumptions and
>>> impairments that need to
>>>
>>> be considered for up to 1Gbps and higher operation?
>>>
>>> How will these change over time?
>>>
>>> Are there regional differences; e.g. China, Europe?
>>>
>>> Number of subscribers per network, take rate
>>>
>>> Minimum required channel data rate
>>>
>>> Maximum desired channel data rate
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hesham
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Howard Frazier
>>> [mailto:
hfrazier@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
hfrazier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 7:00 PM
>>> To:
>>>
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> G
>>>>
>>> Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Study Group Questions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The first meeting of the IEEE 802.3 EPON Protocol over Coax (EPoC) PHY
>>> Study Group will be held January 24th and 25th in Newport Beach, CA,
>>> hosted by the Ethernet Alliance. Please see my previous message for links
>>> to meeting logistical details.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In preparation for the meeting, Mark Laubach and I put together a list of
>>> topics that can help us prepare for a successful study group meeting, and
>>> these are listed in the attached file.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The first set of topics deals with the IEEE 802 standards development
>>> process. I have all of the material I need for this section, and I am
>>> sure that I will be able to enlist the help of some of our experienced
>>> hands to deliver it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The second set of topics deals with operator requirements, and this is
>>> where I would like to make an appeal for contributions. We may not get
>>> contributions that address all of the topics listed, and there may not
>>> even be universal agreement that the topics are relevant, but I think
>>> that these are areas that must be explored in the study group if we are
>>> to do a proper job of defining the scope of a new project, and judging it
>>> against the "5 Criteria".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> People wishing to make a contribution to the study group should review
>>> the "Procedure for Presenters" information that can be found here:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
http://www.ieee802.org/3/epoc/public/presentproc.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since this is a new email reflector, I would also like to make people
>>> aware of the IEEE 802.3 Working Group email reflector policy that can be
>>> found here:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
http://www.ieee802.org/3/reflector_policy.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will welcome your comments and questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Howard Frazier
>>>
>>> Broadcom Corporation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>>
>>>
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> <="" p="">
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>>> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
>>> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
>>> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
>>> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
>>> that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in
>>> relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly
>>> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in
>>> error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the
>>> original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>>
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>>
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
>
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
>
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1