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


Carlos, picking up on point 3:

One man's fragmentation is another mans channelisation.

I am trying to sting together some interesting topics for the March meeting
to deal with unbundling fiber, open access for services (with a revenue
stream that works for the owner of the infrastructure/transport/facility,
call it what you will, straight billing and revenue share), and a technical
proposal that can demonstrate both technical suitability (hence broad market
acceptance), and a comparatively low cost of implementation. We will also
try to address the OAM transport wars and the subject of QoS. Other than
that we will have very little to say :-). I think the March meeting will be
one of the most critical in the history of EFM. Hope you can be there.

Best regards


-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of
Sent: 14 February 2002 14:57
To: vincent.bemmel@xxxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Levi;
Lior Khermosh
Cc: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Subject: RE: [EFM] [EFM-P2MP] 10G EPONs

To everyone that have answered to my email regarding 10G EPONs...

First of all, thanks for all the information regarding component costs. I
purposely left the price out of my comparison - as a service provider, I do
not have enough information about particular component costs. Also, as a
potential customer, I want to see the cost as a result of our requirements,
not the other way around. In other words: service providers have
requirements, and it's up to vendors to provide us with a cost effective
solution (if possible at all).

Now back to the original claim:

1. I did not mean to state that 2.5Gbps or 10 Gbps EPONs will be more cost
effective than 1 Gbps EPONs.

2. What I said is that it *may be* more cost effective to *increase* the
total bandwidth available at the PON, instead of increasing its efficiency.
It is only a suggestion, and I'm happy to be proved wrong.

3. I said that fragmentation is difficult to implement. Well, it may be not
very complex in terms of silicon. But it is a highly controversial theme  -
there are so many ways to solve the problem, making it hard to reach
consensus. Best left as it is now, with no fragmentation, in the
old-fashioned 802.3 way.

3. As far as the optical components are concerned, the relationship between
speed, cost, and reach is clear. Unfortunately, one can't increase speed
and reach while keeping costs low. The 'sweet spot' now is on 1 Gbps.

4. On the other hand, the MPCP protocol can be made to scale easily to
higher speed PONs.

5. It seems to be possible to design the processing logic to work at higher
speeds with relative ease. Good part of the processing logic works at the
packet level, not at the bit level, and so works a much lower pace, not at
line rate. This may be a factor to make development of 2.5 Gbps EPONs a
little bit easier.

***** disclaimer: what follows is my *personal* opinion, not CTBC Telecom's
one *****

To end this thread, I have a *personal* bet. Once 802.3ah is standardized,
we will see higher speed PON products appearing very soon (probably less
than a year). Vendors need to differentiate, and the speed increase will be
one of the most obvious ways to make it. Higher speed PONs will also make
it possible to have bigger split ratios, making them even more attractive
for service providers. Of course, it depends on innovations on low-cost
laser development, but with so many companies and bright minds working,
it's highly probable that it will be done sooner than later.

Again, this is just a personal bet, not CTBC Telecom's opinion, and I may
be completely off track on this one.

Carlos Ribeiro
CTBC Telecom