Re: [EFM] Clarification of Copper Objective
Because of having to spend time with the OAM track, I have not spent a lot
of time in the copper track. Coming from a service provider environment, I
see two separate and distinct deployment markets for Ethernet over
copper. One is high bandwidth (10Mbps) support for business customers in
multi-tenant buildings and in business parks. There is also a backlog
demand for low bandwidth (< 1Mbps) residential broadband connectivity
through Ethernet over long reach copper local loop facilities.
While the business services market is large, the resident market is
potentially MASSIVE. Over a period of years both of these markets should
increase their bandwidth demands, which will be a driver for facilities
overbuild, perhaps using fiber.
Until then, short of allowing other standards bodies to take over the
standardization of Ethernet PHYs, 802.3ah needs to recognize and have
objectives that meet the deployment markets. How do we make that happen?
From what I understand, ANSI is working on copper local loop data
transmission facilities standard that is equivalent to an Ethernet PHY. If
the group wants to allow ANSI and ITU to take control of Ethernet data
transmission facilities standards, then I am fine with that. Personally I
hate to see that happen.
At 09:23 AM 6/11/2002 -0700, Howard Frazier wrote:
>We have noted with concern that there seems to be some
>confusion regarding the interpretation of the IEEE P802.3ah
>EFM Task Force copper PHY objective. Given that the objective
>is terse, and provides room for interpretation, we offer the following
>clarification. Please parse this clarification carefully.
> PHY for single pair non-loaded voice grade copper
> distance >=750m and speed >=10Mbps full-duplex
>The 802.3ah task force has chosen an objective that specifies
>a symmetric MINIMUM bit rate at a particular link distance.
>It would be perfectly valid to build and deploy equipment that
>provides an asymmetric service at that distance, provided that
>the minimum is met in each direction.
>Similarly, it would be perfectly valid to build and deploy equipment
>that offers a different bit rate at a different link distance, provided
>that for all link distances less than the distance specified in the
>objective, the minimum bit rate is met in each direction.
>The objective does not have to be met on all possible copper
>loops of the specified length, nor does it have to be met in the
>face of all possible impairments.
>Chair, IEEE P802.3ah EFM Task Force
>Chair, IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD Working Group