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

[EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM-P2P] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast

Carlos (+ all),

These are all very well put requirements, and I appreciate your pointing at them again. They also largely coincide with what I hear from some operators over in Europe (I'll see if they can in some way communicate this directly to/within EFM).

Thank you,
Ingvar Froroth

> -----Original Message-----
> From: carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 8:04 PM
> To: Ingvar Frroth
> Cc: 'Roy Bynum';; 
> '';
> Subject: Re: [EFM-P2P] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
> Ingvar,
> I've sent a document with our requirements to the group some time ago.
> They're located at:
> At this document, I've tried to outline several options to 
> provide voice,
> video and data services using an EFM approach. Here follow a 
> short resume
> of the main alternatives for voice and video:
> Voice service:
> a) Voice over TDM (using sideband modulation)
> b) Voice over packet, with three options:
> b.1) Voice over TDM emulation, transparent mode.
> b.2) Voice over TDM emulation, advanced signaling.
> b.3) Voice over IP (soft switch approach).
> Video service:
> a) Analog video overlay, using a WDM approach (separate wavelength for
> video).
> b) Digital video over packet. This is the preferred approach. 
> That is why I
> believe that single-copy-broadcast is *needed* for EFM.
> For the video delivery, we devised a VLAN-based approach to implement
> channel segregation. At that time, we felt that IGMP snooping 
> would not be
> a good alternative to solve the selective channel 
> distribution problem,
> based on the assumption that the complexity, and thus the 
> price, would be
> too high. By using VLANs, we expected to be able to 
> selectively deliver
> only some channels of video to every customer, and then - 
> from the ONU to
> the settop box, where bandwidth is at a premium - we would 
> use the same
> system to deliver only a single TV channel. Now we see that 
> IGMP snooping
> may scale well enough, but we still count VLAN (with some advanced
> membership protocol, such as GARP) as a viable alternative.
> There are also other comments, and we could discuss this 
> extensively. I
> believe that this is more on the focus of what we are calling 
> 'Ethernet
> Subscriber Access', or ESA for short - the integrated 
> solution to bring
> services to the market, using Ethernet based technology.
> Carlos Ribeiro
> CTBC Telecom