|
Copying everyone else from the original posting . . .
Thanks Alan. Please see my comments inline.
Regards,
Jorge
Three comments, please:
·
Just one detail…we discussed on the call that perhaps our target really should be the MAC data rate, not the PHY rate.
[JDS] Agreed. We should change PHY rate for MAC rate.
·
I do think we need a “minimum of” 25 Gb/s to be stated in the objective.
[JDS] Yes, makes sense, but I thought we were doing that with “…at
least…”, no?
·
I’m okay with the concept of “N x base”, but I’m concerned whether 802.3 WG will accept that vagueness (“N”). Maybe some hardcore WG
guys have more insight. [JDS] Yes, I agree, and I think that’s
our biggest potential obstacle.
Best regards,
Alan
In general I’m supportive of what you propose. I have a couple more detailed comments…
-
it appears you’re going down from four PHYs to two PHYs by removing the objective of "An EPON PHY … of at least 40 Gb/s.” Essentially the objective you provided would only provide a single symmetric
rate and a single asymmetric rate. My read of the original objective is written in a way that we could end up with both a 25Gbps PHY and a 40Gbps PHY, whereas your new language suggests to me that we would end up with only a >=25Gbps PHY. I’m not sure whether
that’s intentional or not.
- The new objective of "An EPON PHY … that is a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s downstream
and a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s upstream” seems to lock us into the 25Gbps rate. Perhaps we could get around that by restating the objective like this: "An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand,
at a symmetric data rate that is a multiple of the selected downstream rate (e.g. 25Gbps or 40Gbps) and a multiple of the selected upstream rate.”
I have been having discussions with a few people on an expansion of the objectives, which I would like to bring up to everyone. Curtis alluded to this additional
objective during the meeting last week, which I and others at Comcast was unable to attend because of conflicting meetings.
The currently proposed objectives regarding capacity for NG-EPON are as follows:
- An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 25 Gb/s in downstream and at least 25
Gb/s upstream
- An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the asymmetric data rate of at least 25 Gb/s in downstream and at least 10
Gb/s upstream
- An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 40 Gb/s in downstream and at least 40
Gb/s upstream
- An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 40 Gb/s in downstream and at least 10
Gb/s upstream
At Comcast we believe that we should develop an NG-EPON standard that is scalable beyond 25 or 40 Gbps. The process for developing an EPON standard takes quite
some time, because of which we believe we need to look beyond 5 years as we develop the standard.
Many of us MSOs have been providing broadband services for almost 20 years now, and have always observed a usage growth and a service offering growth of 50%
year over year, requiring a doubling of the network capacity every other year. Comcast is now deploying 10G EPON and offering 2 Gbps service now (this is a statement of fact, not conjecture), and therefore we recognize that we will need to grow the network
capacity beyond 50G in around 4-5 years and offer peak speeds beyond 10G within the same timeframe.
We believe that we need a standard that will incorporate bonding of Nx25G channels (or Nx40G channels if 40G is economically feasible). This does not mean that
the first product needs to support Nx wavelengths. Quite the contrary, the first product, which we believe will be available by around the 2017 timeframe, needs only support 25G. But, by 2019 we need 2x25G bonded, by 2022 we need 4x25G bonded, and by 2024
we need beyond that rate.
Therefore, we propose that the goals for NG-EPON include:
- An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 25 Gb/s in downstream and at least 25
Gb/s upstream
- An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the asymmetric data rate of at least 25 Gb/s in downstream and at least 10
Gb/s upstream
An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 40 Gb/s in downstream and at least
40 Gb/s upstreamAn EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at the symmetric data rate of at least 40 Gb/s in downstream and at least
10 Gb/s upstream- An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at a symmetric data rate that is a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s downstream and
a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s upstream
- An EPON PHY, operating over single SMF strand, at a symmetric data rate that is a whole multiple of 25 Gb/s downstream and
at least 10 Gb/s upstream
An important note is that we believe the above goals are in line with the role of the Study Group as these do not outline HOW to achieve the goals. Instead the goals just state
WHAT to target in terms of speeds. So, while I state above that we need to strive for a standard that implements bonding, the goals don’t state that.
We also suggest to scratch the goal for 40 Gbps because this goal is covered by the “at least 25 Gbps” single speed/wavelength objective and by the addition
of the new multi lane requirements.
Thanks!
Jorge
From:
Curtis Knittle <C.Knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:52 PM
To: Next Gen EPON Majordomo List <ng-epon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, STDS-802-3-NGEPON <STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Marek Hajduczenia <Marek.Hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Pondillo, Peter L'" <PondilloPL@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Oakley <Phil.Oakley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
'Rick Li' <Rick.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Emmendorfer, Mike'" <Mike.Emmendorfer@xxxxxxxxx>, Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>,
"'Ten, Sergey Y'" <TenS@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ryan Hirth <rhirth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Mallette, Edwin J.'" <Edwin.Mallette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Ulm, John'" <John.Ulm@xxxxxxxxx>, "'barry.colella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <barry.colella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Chow, Bruce C'" <ChowBC@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Hesham ElBakoury <Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Laubach <laubach@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
'William Bliss' <willblis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Donna Yasay' <dyasay@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Harstead Edward E (Ed)" <ed.harstead@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Kevin Noll <kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Glen Kramer <gkramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Tucker, Ryan
R'" <Ryan.Tucker@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Matt Petersen <matt.petersen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Francois Menard' <fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Powell
<bill.powell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Shankar Hariharan (shhariha)'" <shhariha@xxxxxxxxx>, "'hanhyub@xxxxxxxxxx'" <hanhyub@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"'zzhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <zzhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Miguelez <Phil_Miguelez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Douglas Jones <Douglas_Jones3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Peters, Michael'" <MPeters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'tago@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tago@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jorge Salinger <jorge_salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'chung@xxxxxxxxxx'" <chung@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bourg, Kevin'" <Kevin.Bourg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Grotzke, Andrew" <Andy.Grotzke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'derek.cassidy@xxxxxx'" <derek.cassidy@xxxxxx>, "'Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx'" <Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: NG-EPON Study Group Weekly meeting notes
Please let me know if I need to add or revise any of the notes below.
IEEE 802.3 NG-EPON Study Group Work Items and Socialization
·
Review of Guidelines for IEEE-SA meetings.
·
https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/preparslides.pdf
·
Has anyone not seen these Guidelines? Everyone has seen the guidelines
·
Email reflector
·
After today (8/20/15) email reflector will be IEEE reflector:
·
STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
·
If you were previously on
ng-epon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, please go here to subscribe to IEEE reflector:
·
http://www.ieee802.org/3/NGEPONSG/reflector.html
·
Call for Contributions
·
First Study Group meeting is:
·
September 14-15, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm
·
Contribution deadline: September 4, 2015 AOE
·
Send initial PDF and
indicate amount of time desiredto
c.knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
·
Study Group Objectives
·
General comments:
·
Bill – would like to get to task force by November – would like to avoid getting bogged down with extra objectives
·
Glen – We need to analyze every comment to make sure it answers “what” and not “how” – CFI is for “why,” Study Group is for “what,” Task Force is for “how.” Perfectly fine to say
we want to achieve a certain bit rate, but not fine to say how it is achieved.
·
Offline feedback:
·
Duane (via email): I would like to note that I have concerns regarding the 40Gbps objective wording
·
Jorge (via email): we have comments/suggestions along the lines of suggesting a more specific objective for N x base-PMD
·
Alan – Objective 802.3av listed a PHY and a bit rate
·
See changes to R05 of the objectives here:
·
https://owncloud.cablelabs.com/public.php?service=files&t=4951cd9a35045bade1c1b0729eecaac0
·
Regarding weekly meetings and finishing objectives and CSD and PAR
·
Curtis to check on IEEE processes. Is there a pre-submission requirement? Can we make decisions early in plenary, and then present at closing plenary?
·
Can we vote during the weekly meetings?
Table 1: Attendees
|
Name
|
Employer/Affiliation
|
|
Curtis Knittle
|
CableLabs
|
|
Alan Brown
|
CommScope
|
|
Bill Powell
|
ALU
|
|
Bruce Chow
|
Corning
|
|
Barry Colella
|
Source Photonics
|
|
Ed Harstead
|
ALU
|
|
Fernando Villarruel
|
Cisco
|
|
Glen Kramer
|
Broadcom
|
|
Hesham ElBakoury
|
Huawei
|
|
Marek Hajduczenia
|
Bright House Networks
|
|
Mark Laubach
|
Broadcom
|
|
Michael Peters
|
Sumitomo
|
|
Mike Emmendorfer
|
Arris
|
|
Ryan Tucker
|
Charter
|
|
Francois Menard
|
Aeponyx
|
|
Derrick Cassidy
|
BT
|
|
Ryan Hirth
|
Broadcom
|
|