[EFM] RE: [EFM-P2MP] Point-to-Point plus Shared Media
A few P2MP comments.............
Sub-Layer and Protocol
sublayer using a logical PHY ID approach allows for compatibility and
interoperability with 802.1. So far, so good... but there are
several open questions:
- There are 2
emulation choices being discussed: point-to-point P2PE and shared SE.
Will one of these be defined, or will both be defined so that the vendor decides
on whether to implement
P2PE, SE, or P2P+SE. Example: one may choose for business P2PE, for
inter-campus - SE, for residential - P2P+SE.
- Will the emulation
sub-layer be independent of the
protocol layer? So far it looks that
way, that each layer will do its job without the other
- Can P2MP Ethernet be deployed without the
emulation sub-layer and achieve multi-vendor compatibility, or will EPON require the PHY ID even if it is
implementing both P2P+Shared emulation, the ONU has to have two
logical MACs. Does a 2-logical
MAC ONU unduly increase the
- Without the emulation
sublayer, one can not have layer-2
ONU-to-ONU communication, but one can do single frame broadcast and point to
point OLT-ONU communication using
VLAN. Is this a tradeoff/decision (to use, or not to use, the
emulation layer) that the system implementer will decide on?
- In which layer below the MAC will this
appreciate hearing comments/opinions on the above questions. So far the impression I have is that most are
proposing that both P2PE and SE be defined in a below-MAC sublayer, they operate
independent of the P2MP control-frame protocol, with implementation decided by
the vendor. Do I have that right....
As a reminder, if
you want to get involved in the group Protocol/Emulation framework
details, please contact one of the leads below who are coordinating conference
Ryan Hirth: RHirth@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Onn Haran: onn.haran@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hiroshi Suzuki: hsuzuki@xxxxxxxxx
Some of the
initial draft work is being done off the reflector.... I will do my best to
encourage these drafts/discussions to be posted on the P2MP reflector, as these are the two
paramount topics for P2MP track... but not
getting enough air time on the P2MP reflector.
> Cost of
> I think that the "service providers" need to get together and
> a presentation at
the next meeting that would include the "services"
> and the functional requirements of those
You would think that after a year we would have
that figured out, but we probably don't - I think everyone would welcome more
service provider presentations. Also, I would encourage you to give
input to the "Requirements III" presentation that Dolors (dolors@xxxxxxxxxxxx) is
leading. This is a clean-up of the first two group Requirements
presentations from the previous two meetings, and
it covers (to an extent) functional requirements. Thanks.