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

RE: [EFM] P2MP -> P2P migration path


I think that I am understanding what you are saying here. I would like to
change some of the wording/acronyms/semantics and see if I understand.

What you are looking for is a migration path from P2MP to a VIRTUAL P2P
(VP2P). This VP2P would use the P2MP infrastructure but provide a P2P
functionality. The intent would be for each VP2P (or each VP2MP) link to
utilize an independent wavelength.

The implication is that EFM would have to provide a wavelength and budget
plan that supported this upgrade path.

Is that it?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Ribeiro [mailto:cribeiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:35 AM
> To: John Pickens; Dolors Sala
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [EFM] P2MP -> P2P migration path
> At 09:48 17/07/01 -0700, John Pickens wrote:
> >One school of thought is that EPON is just a simple 
> transition technology 
> >on the way toward PTP, so (upstream) efficiency is no 
> >consideration.  Heck, 10-20% of available link capacity would be 
> >great.  Heck, why not just divide up the bandwidth 
> statically and give 
> >each ONU 1/16th of the raw link bandwidth.  It's a lot simpler that 
> >way.  Plus the EFM operator will just switchover to PTP 
> anyway once the 
> >traffic gets to a significant level.
> >
> >Another school of thought is that EPON is an enduring 
> technology which (in 
> >order to compete with other enduring shared technologies, 
> e.g. copper and 
> >vaporized-copper) must dynamically maximize the utilization 
> of the link 
> >bandwidth up to 100% utilization.  Furthermore latency 
> sensitive traffic 
> >must be capable of seeing minimum latency (e.g. 0 ms for a 
> constant bit 
> >rate stream) on the uplink.
> >
> >So the question is which extreme model (or intermediate model) is 
> >required.  The model chosen will determine the functionality 
> requirements 
> >of the MAC/PHY.
> I could not have put it better. That's where my wavelength allocation 
> request comes into play. As we don't know (as of now) which 
> model is going 
> to be the winner, I believe that we have to reserve space for the P2P 
> migration path. A carefully designed wavelength allocation 
> scheme may allow 
> this discussion be be tackled later. For now, we can work out 
> the P2MP EPON 
> standard, knowing that we will have room for P2P in the future.
> Carlos Ribeiro
> CTBC Telecom