RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
Kent,
As all of the functionality of 802.3ah is frame based, I would be cautious
stating that any of it would be able to support T1 services, particularly
"Private Line". Packet based voice services that emulate T1 would,
however, qualify under the ANSI and ITU "services" definitions as "packet"
or "virtual circuit over packet".
The emulation as well as the OAM are frame based, not facilities based so
802.3ah is packet/frame service oriented, not subscription network
oriented. The term "exclusive use" can not be applied to an services which
are provided over any of the 802.3ah frames, except where the physical
copper/fiber facility is dedicated to the customer. Unless there have been
some radical changes to the wording of ITU x.7 in the last year, 802.3ah
PON will not qualify to provide any kind of Leased Circuit Private Line
services.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 05:45 PM 12/4/2002 -0800, Mccammon, Kent G. wrote:
>Tom,
>Since I have a conflict with the call tomorrow and I am interested in this
>decision, here are some questions.
>
>1)Do any of the options for PON timing impact the delivery of services such
>as toll quality voice, a T1, or multicast video? We had this concern
>previously and the answer previously was claimed to be only an efficiency
>hit for loose timing. Are the modeling assumptions to compare efficiency
>valid for TDM services or is that not a consideration in this debate to
>date?
>2)The negotiation of timing parameters rather than a tight specification
>have any impact on future interoperability testing? If we ever decide to
>test interoperability of EPON OLT and ONT, can a lab testing system be
>reasonably built to test compliance to a specification for OLT/ONT timing
>for the various options under debate?
>3)Do operating temperature swings have an impact on timing options. Is their
>reason to add extra margin or extra negotiation time of timing parameters
>due to temperature variations? What about cold start in cold temperatures,
>that was an issue for power levels, does it also impact the electronics of
>the PMD?
>
>Comment: As an advocate of PON technologies I echo my earlier comments about
>striving for common PON PMD to get the volume started in today's economy. I
>am optimistic a compromise can be found in January.
>Thanks,
>-Kent
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:12 AM
> > To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
> > Subject: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> >
> >
> > Hello Again,
> >
> > Attacted two possible approaches to this discussion forming
> > two decision trees. Glen and I worked on these I I did not
> > have a chance to co-ordinate with him and refine to one
> > slide. The first slide is mine and I would like to start
> > here as it allows us to generate values without having to
> > make decisions. When the values are agreed upon, we can work
> > towards the decision and perhaps this is simpler with the
> > values we have.
> >
> > If this does not work, we can try the seconf slide, Glen's
> > approach, which is a more top-down attack.
> >
> > Talk to you tomorrow
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > <<PON Timing Decision Tree.ppt>>
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Items to Be Covered
> >
> > 1) Determine the exact meaning of the terms "Fixed Value"
> > and 'Upper Bound" in terms
> > of their use for PMD timing parameters.
> >
> > 2) Try assign placeholder values for all of the options
> >
> > 3) Are these values fixed or bounded for the different options.
> >
> > 4) Other items
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >