RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope
I think these are some of the questions that will be addressed by those
folks supporting 100M at the next meeting, where the expectation is that
there will be a justification of the 5 criteria to show technical and
economic justification among other things. As Ulf was still soliciting
supporters just last week, I doubt that the presentation is ready just
I don't think its required to show the differences in equipment types,
but rather justification for the development of new PHYs - what
equipment things go in is a little outside the scope of the IEEE, and
requiring different equipment isn't always seen as the best thing.
Technical justification for a new 100M PHY is easy - its the same as the
1G case - extended temperature, distance objectives, single mode, etc.
Look at the 1G solution and replace 1000M with 100M. I think the only
question in peoples minds is the economic justification of 100M versus
1G solutions. I'd like to give the 100M supporters a chance to develop
this aspect of the proposal, and I'm sure we'll all have a chance to
look at it by January.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:23 PM
> To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; howard Frazier
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
> What are the differences in equipment types that would be in
> place for the
> deployment that you describe that do not currently exist.
> What would be
> the cost differential to the customer between an optical
> 100Mb vs. 1000Mb
> service from the active system in the building co-location
> space? What is
> the service model for this deployment?
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> At 05:06 PM 11/26/2001 +0000, Bob Barrett wrote:
> >Roy, Howard et al,
> >I am reading the 100M track as referring to dedicated full
> duplex 100M
> >optical links to a customer site from a POP, where there is
> an _active_
> >device (either a layer two switch or a router), owned by the service
> >provider. This is a common topology in Europe.
> >I think 'campus' refers to a Business Park environment and
> >refers to enterprise customer in this context.
> >The 100M full duplex over single mode is a definite S.P.
> requirements in
> >Europe, if not the US, and with IEEE now being the home of
> >standards I think the 100M requirement in the first mile is
> >within scope.
> >To many Europeans this long-line at 1GE architecture, with
> active star 100M
> >to the customer, supports a better business case than EPON.
> Our loops are
> >shorter and our business campus environments more dense than
> many in the US.
> >Most have some form of comms. room in which an SP can deploy
> kit, similar to
> >the basement of an MTU.
> >Please don't dismiss this 100M requirement from EFM just
> because it is not
> >US centric. Our carriers are doing it already with
> 'non-standard' equipment
> >because there isn't any 802.3 compliant carrier class
> equipment for 100M
> >single mode.
> >Best regards
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: email@example.com
> > > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
> Of Roy Bynum
> > > Sent: 26 November 2001 14:45
> > > To: howard Frazier
> > > Cc: email@example.com
> > > Subject: [EFM] Is "campus" P2MP out of scope?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Howard,
> > >
> > > I am seeing several references to a "enterprise" type of "campus"
> > > deployment as a target for P2MP optical services. I may be
> > > mistaken, but I
> > > thought that this TF was working on support of
> "subscription networks"
> > > which, by my understanding, are commercial service access
> networks, not
> > > enterprise networks. Am I mistaken? If I am not, then that
> > > would make the
> > > need to support enterprise campus networks somewhat out of scope.
> > >
> > > I hate to see a lot of effort put into trying to support
> campus networks
> > > for ubiquitous shared access over optical media. From my
> > > ubiquitous shared networks have an effective utilization
> of about 30%,
> > > depending on the number of nodes on the media. The support and
> > > maintenance of that type of topology in the enterprise
> campus environment
> > > would be very similar to the old "coax" system of years ago. At
> > > the lower
> > > utilization, an the high maintenance labor costs, the
> higher cost of the
> > > optical media would not be cost effective. I don't see
> much of a market
> > > for that type of deployment.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
adr:;;639 Davis Drive;Durham;NC;27713;USA