Thread Links |
Date Links |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |

*To*: "'Carlos Ribeiro'" <cribeiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Roy Bynum'" <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: RE: [EFM] Split ratios*From*: "Horne, David M" <david.m.horne@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 06:33:07 -0700*Cc*: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org*Sender*: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org

Carlos, yes, I understand all these considerations. That was not my question. The apparent consensus with splits of 16 and 32 seems to have been arrived at devoid of any engineering considerations. Those engineering considerations are exactly what I was suggesting are needed. The final comment you made of "just don't ask me why" is what I WAS asking. Use of 16 or 32 for interim discussion purposes is fine; I am just suggesting we not get too attached to those numbers since other ratios may prove to be more beneficial for Ethernet PON based on more detailed considerations. 16 and 32 have not been cast in concrete, correct? -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Ribeiro [mailto:cribeiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 4:39 AM To: Horne, David M; 'Roy Bynum'; glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org Subject: [EFM] Split ratios At 21:02 18/07/01 -0700, Horne, David M wrote: >Where did the often-cited split ratios of 16 and 32 come from, anyway? There are two considerations here. First, there is a maximum limit on the split ratio, that depends on the power budget and attenuation. I believe that distance is not going to be the major attenuation factor in the access network situation; the number of points where you have signal degradation (connectors, splits, etc) is going to be the major factor. The actual physical construction of the access network is going to be completely different, specially if we have any hope of providing FTTH service; there are a lot of practical and operational issues still unsolved. The other consideration is economical. A true point-to-point network can be equated to a 1:1 split ratio. OTOH the split ratio in a PON network can range from 1:8, 1:16, or even 1:64. Bigger split ratios mean less bandwidth available for each customer, but it also costs less to deploy. Se rhere is a cost equation, depending on a lot of factors - technical and marketing included - that will tell what is the best ratio in economical terms. I don't expect this answer to be known at this point; we will only be able to find this number with practical knowledge, ooking at the real situations. As for myself, I feel comfortable with a 1:16 split ration Just don't ask me why <wink>. Carlos Ribeiro CTBC Telecom

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: [EFM] Split ratios***From:*Carlos Ribeiro

- Prev by Date:
**RE: [EFM] RE: EPON TDMA** - Next by Date:
**[EFM] Split ratios** - Prev by thread:
**[EFM] Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:06:01 +0800** - Next by thread:
**RE: [EFM] Split ratios** - Index(es):