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

[EFM] RE: [EFM-P2MP] Point-to-Point plus Shared Media

A few P2MP comments.............
> Emulation Sub-Layer and Protocol
The emulation 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 one.   
- 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 not used?
 If implementing both P2P+Shared emulation, the ONU has to have two logical MACs. Does a 2-logical MAC ONU unduly increase the ONU complexity? 
- 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 sub-layer occur?  
I would 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 calls, etc..  

Protocol Framework
    Ryan Hirth:
    Ajay Gummalla:
    Onn Haran:
Emulation Framework
    Hiroshi Suzuki: hsuzuki@xxxxxxxxx 
    John Pickens:

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 deploying fiber  
Ron:  Where you got your $/ft  fiber deployment cost numbers? The reason I am asking is they look very different from what was presented in July:   (I like your numbers better;).
> Requirements (Roy wrote):
I think that the "service providers" need to get together and make 
> a presentation at the next meeting that would include the "services" 
> and the functional requirements of those "services".

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 requirementsThanks.  

Gerry Pesavento