[EFM] RE: clarification on compliance definition
make one thing clear - time to market is not the ultimate motive of standards.
may be important to you, but the world does not revolve around AllOptic.)
IEEE 802.x family of standards establishes a framework that encompasses many
different data networking systems. If we follow
the model that you are recommending,
all the 802.x standards should be merged into 802.3. Why not? It
would be faster,
easier, less organizational overhead, leverage the
Ethernet 'brand', etc.
trust that everybody can see that this is ridiculous.
reason for structure is to help guide the development of rational standards
have some integrity of purpose and architecture. By trying to
Ethernet MAC over the PON physical medium, you
and your bretheren are going
have to compromise away a large amount of functionallity.
You are also going
disregard many network operator requirements. This is going
to produce a
have made statements many times to the effect of, "It can be made to
don't doubt it. You can patch enough glue on top of the Ethernet MAC so as
it operate. But that is not how systems are supposed to be designed.
Instead of straining after 802.3 compliance, we should
bite the bullet and branch
into a MAC group. That is the only way that P2MP will be able to do its
unconstrained, in an open environment, free from the
'scope police,' who work to
down discussion on important issues in their unbridled quest for a quick
very dirty standard.
know, the flip side of this is that the PTP systems (copper and fiber) have none
these problems. Those groups are well within the scope of 802.3, and I
support them remaining in 802.3ah. Those efforts
will be greatly slowed down by all
issues raised by P2MP. All the individuals who wish to
progress PTP systems
forward should think carefully about the inclusion
of P2MP within 802.3ah. Now that it
become clear that P2MP is a whole different level of complexity in comparison,
should seriously consider again the bifurication of P2MP into a new MAC
> So perhaps a time saver is
to start a new 802.#(18?) where we
> don't need to spend time justifying
"minimum needed" augmentation.
> .... What do you and others think?
opposed to this Walt. It was voted down in the past. Please let me
(1) 802.3ah EFM PAR, 5 Criteria, Objectives
these in place, with one year of work, and wide support. The mission is
I see continuous progress in defining P2MP
Ethernet that offers, per the PAR, a PHY and minimal MAC augmentation. In the
last meeting, it was reinforced that 802.3 has strict guidelines; I believe
they can be followed without a sacrifice in system performance, and I see
encouraging progress toward this.
(2) One EFM Management
Local carriers will want to deploy, from a single platform under
one management system, P2P, P2MP or Copper, given the particular geography.
That is to say, many service providers that will deploy "Ethernet Access
Networks" want to mix P2P, EPON, Copper. If you split, you lose this
(3) One EFM Hardware
The consolidation of P2P, P2MP, Copper is also of benefit to EFM
system vendors, who can offer systems, most elegantly, with a single backplane
and packet engine. I believe the traditional Switch/Router companies
follow this belief.
(4) De-focus Danger
This is the big one.
When the MAC, etc, is an open door, it is much more difficult to find
consensus on a solution. Tony mentioned double the years to standard for a
newly formed group; I believe that is conservative.
802.x(18) EPON scope: TDM, ATM, Analog
Video, DBA, QoS, FEC, DWDM, Security, Outside Plant, Numerous PMDs, newly
defined OAM, .. oh, and Ethernet.
802.3ah EPON scope:
Ethernet for P2MP fiber medium
I would guess that 802.x(18)
would be a black hole, with no end date - not a time saver as you
suggest. We can meet the timeline for P2MP Ethernet laid out by
802.3ah. We need to focus on our 802.3ah PAR, 5 Criteria and Objectives.
I am discouraged to hear continuous push outside this defined
envelope. Howard has built a vision for EFM that ties a common
management system around a compliment of Ethernet in the First Mile solutions
for carriers. I subscribe to that vision.
Tel 530.757.6250 (Davis,