Because an ATM/Ethernet/TDM PON framework does not
fit in the scope
of 802.3ah, I see no reason for you to try to disrupt the work being done.
> free from the 'scope police,' who work to shut down discussion on important issues in
> their unbridled
quest for a quick and very dirty
These "scope police" are the ones who have kept
Ethernet what it is;
the most successful, widely deployed network in
I know of no one in 802.3ah working on a "quick and dirty standard".
> but the world does not revolve around
Frank, please don't ever question my integrity.
Tel 530.757.6250 (Davis, CA)
Cell 530.219.1954 _________________________
Gerry and All,
me make one thing clear - time to market is not the ultimate motive of
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 force-fit the
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
it operate. But that is not how systems are supposed to be
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
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
I am opposed to this Walt. It was voted down
in the past. Please let me explain why.
(1) 802.3ah EFM PAR, 5
We have these in place, with one year of work, and
wide support. The mission is clear.
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.
One EFM Management Platform
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 benefit.
One EFM Hardware Platform
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.
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
scope: TDM, ATM, Analog Video, DBA, QoS, FEC, DWDM, Security,
Outside Plant, Numerous PMDs, newly defined OAM, .. oh, and
802.3ah EPON scope: Ethernet for P2MP
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
Tel 530.757.6250 (Davis,