RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-P2MP] Point-to-Point plus Shared Media
In this case, would this reflective approach require the ONU to have 2 laser detectors... one for the OLT downstream wavelength and then one for detecting (and with appropriate electronics to decode) the reflected ONU broadcasts to keep the ONU in synch with the others? Seems to be building an expensive ONU to save bandwidth.
Further, if the concept of using a wavelength for video is accepted (similar to BPON) then there would be an ONU requirement for either a 4-port transceiver (1 detector for OLT, 1 for video, 1 for reflective use, and a laser for upstream) or a splitter and two 2-port transceivers. Either way it seems to be growing in complexity and cost...
And, what happens when L band applications start to take off...?
Or have I missed something here?
-----Original Message-----
From: Horne, David M [mailto:david.m.horne@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 9:09 PM
To: 'Jack Andresen'
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-P2MP] Point-to-Point plus Shared Media
Jack,
In general, a REFLECTIVE coupler replicates the signal present on any port
to all ports (including the input port), passively. There are some
variations by making internal interconnect changes, such as one that
reflects to all other ports except the input port. The TRANSMISSIVE coupler
for the PON case only shows this broadcast behavior for signals traveling
from the headend towards the splitter, and out to all the end stations.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Andresen [mailto:jandresen@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:59 AM
To: Horne, David M
Cc: 'John Pickens'; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org; Brian Bilbrey
Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: [EFM-P2MP] Point-to-Point plus Shared Media
What is a "reflective" splitter/combiner?
Jack Andresen
___________________________________
"Horne, David M" wrote:
>
> John, have you given any thought to the use of *reflective*
> splitter/combiners, as opposed to the transmissive variety that is being
> assumed for TDMA PON? It would be much more LAN-like; i.e. more true to
> Ethernet operation.
>
> In addition, the reflective splitter/combiner (tree coupler) would be
> roughly half the cost of a transmissive coupler, since it has half as many
> 2x2 sections, with essentially the same loss.
>
> Silicon costs and development time would also be much lower, since the
> multiple access design complexity would be far lower (as would the
> operational complexity of the overall network). The need for TDMA
complexity
> essentially disappears, since the reflected signal serves essentially the
> role of CSMA in traditional Ethernet. Variable-size frames could be
> transmitted without any explicit size reservation, and without any of the
> waste associated with fixed slot size.
>
> As well, because there would be no request/grant protocol or 2-way
> transit-time-delay wait time of the distribution fiber, transmission
> efficiency is higher. About 8 full-sized Ethernet frames of additional
> capacity can be recovered (between any 2 user transmissions) from the
2-way
> transit time of a 10km distribution fiber. This recovered capacity per
user
> is on par with the *allocated* capacity per user, for TDMA with fixed
slots
> size that was being discussed. Not to mention no need for the processing
> and scheduling delay for the request/grant at the headend, which recovers
> even more of the capacity that is lost to the TDMA protocol overhead.
>
> Overall, the idea is that changing out one passive component in the
outside
> plant for another lower-cost passive component with the same signal loss
> would allow a high degree of simplification in the design and operation of
> PON, and an improvement in transmission efficiency. It would also be more
> consistent with traditional Ethernet.
>
> --dave horne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Pickens [mailto:jpickens@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:49 AM
> To: Norman Finn; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [EFM-P2MP] Point-to-Point plus Shared Media
>
> Good clarification.
>
> I would like to study one additional question related to this topic.
>
> How can an operator offer the benefits (in the EPON link segment) of both
> point to point AND point to multipoint to a single endpoint beyond the ONU
> (e.g. personal computer concurrently a. viewing a 20Mbps HDTV video and b.
> engaging in a 400Kbps point to point instant messenger video/audio
session)
> and also maintain the link efficiencies gained by point to point.
>
> It is certainly possible to maintain separate networks to the end point -
> separate MAC in ONU, separate 100BT port in the ONU, separate ethernet
> LANs, and separate NICs in the personal computer (even better, separate
> personal computers). What is less clear is how to converge the networks -
> and configure the networks (PC, LAN, ONU, OLT) so that the "right" traffic
> traverses the "right" path (instant messenger traverses point to point;
> HDTV traverses shared media).
>
> It is also possible to limit the options here and say that an ONU can be
> either shared only or point to point only. And to say that if
> single-copy-broadcast attribute of the media needs to be accessed, that it
> is acceptable to operate in shared mode (up to 50% reduction in link
> capacity if all ONUs require single-copy-broadcast).
>
> I know there is a contingent within the working group that does not
> consider it a requirement to access the single-copy-broadcast attribute of
> the media, so probably we should poll this question at some point.
>
> J
>
> At 11:58 AM 11/14/2001 -0800, Norman Finn wrote:
>
> >To clarify my comments at the 802.3 EFM EPON meeting on November 14 in
> Austin:
> >
> >ENDPOINTS: LOGICAL MACS AND MEDIA
> >
> > 1. Assume an EPON with an OLT and n ONUs.
> >
> > 2. In the simplest case, the OLT has n+1 logical MACs. n of them are
> point-
> > to-point MACs, and one of them is a shared medium MAC. Each ONU has
2
> > logical MACs. One of them is a shared medium MAC, and one is a
> point-to-
> > point MAC. All of the ONU's shared medium MACs are on the same
> emulated
> > shared medium as the OLT's shared media MAC. The other n ONU MACs
> form
> > point-to-point connections with the corresponding n OLT
point-to-point
> > MACs.
> >
> > 2. In more advanced configurations, an ONU may have more than one
> point-to-
> > point logical MAC, which means that the OLT must have a
corresponding
> > number of point-to-point logical MACs. There may be more than one
> > emulated shared media, each additional emulated shared medium
> requiring
> > a logical MAC on each participant, OLT or ONU. One may even define
> > emulated point-to-point or shared media which connect ONUs only,
> > without a corresponding OLT logical MAC. It all depends on how far
> > the committee wishes to take the ID/tag fields required to implement
> > the various features.
> >
> >ACCOMPLISHING THE EMULATION:
> >
> > 3. In order to emulate a shared medium, (or a point-to-point medium
> > between two ONU logical MACs), the OLT must reflect frames sent by
> > ONUs back downstream, so that the other ONUs can see them. No such
> > reflection is needed for point-to-point ONU-OLT links. If a frame
> > is reflected back to the ONU that transmitted it, the ONU absolutely
> > must discard that frame in order to maintain compatibility with
> > existing 802.3 devices, including routers, bridges, and end
stations.
> >
> > 4. In the absence additional higher-level protocols, beyond the current
> > 802.1 bridging protocols, there is not enough information in an
> > Ethernet frame for an OLT or ONU to make filtering decisions that
will
> > both 1) filter unwanted data frames from the EPON stream, and 2)
pass
> > data frames necessary for proper operation of a bridged network.
This
> > is true for both shared media emulation and point-to-point
emulation.
> >
> > 5. In order to remedy this difficulty, one may use protocols above the
> > MAC layer. Such higher layer protocols would allow bridges or other
> > devices to share information about their MAC address databases.
> > Such protocols would be extremely difficult to implement, and would
> > be likely to introduce significant delays in the delivery of frames.
> > Furthermore, no existing standard 802.1 bridge would work on an EPON
> > EFM link without such protocol augmentation.
> >
> > 6. Tags carried below the MAC layer solve the problem, as discussed
> > by several presenters. In their simplest form, a tag on
> > a point-to-point frame identifies the logical MAC which is to
> > receive the frame, and a tag on a shared media frame identifies
> > which logical MAC generated the frame, so that that logical MAC
> > can discard the frame if or when it receives it, again.
> >
> >NET RESULT:
> >
> >If one implements the n+1 (OLT) + 2n (ONUs) logical PHY approach, then
> >one gets:
> >
> > a. The ability to do point-to-point communications without incurring
> > any extraneous waste of bandwidth.
> >
> > b. The ability to do point-to-multipoint transmissions (on the shared
> > media) without waste of bandwidth.
> >
> > c. The ability to connect *existing* bridges with either point-to-
> > point or shared media -- or both.
> >
> > d. Complete compatibility and interoperability with 802.1 and other
> > 802.3 media, and interoperability with all existing 802.1 and .3
> > compatible devices, including hubs, bridges, routers, and end
> > stations.
> >
> >Additional complexity in the definition and use of the tags buys
> >further flexibility in the point-to-point vs. shared media. It is
> >for further study to determine the best balance between complexity
> >and flexibility.
> >
> >-- Norm Finn