RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
The service delivery is not affected in any way by the PMD.
I'll elaborate based on your examples:
Voice/TI services - service quality is affected by behavior of
packetizer and streamer. When you poll the ONU every millisecond you
will receive the same service quality regardless of the PMD used. Simply
one PMD will give you 96.8% utilization, and the other 95.6%.
Multicast video - this is a service in the downstream direction that is
not affected by the upstream bursting behavior.
The efficiancy comparisons are valid regardless of the service. TDM for
example is packetized by protocol ZZZ. Protocol ZZZ has the same
overheads and efficiencies in all cases.
What we see is that all PMD proposals answer the same service
requirements. The customer would see the same thing.
The only observable effect is the maximal UPSTREAM utilization.
The only questions remaining for the service providers to answer is can
they make more money from the network with the extra 1.2% of bandwidth?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
> Mccammon, Kent G.
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 17:45
> To: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone Conference, December 5th
> 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: email@example.com; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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