Gerry and all,
I think Francois touched a point that
we will have to deal with for many months to come.
But, I also think it's more a
perception problem, than a real PON/P2P differentiator.
A PON CPE cannot be physically
disconnected from the network, and a P2P CPE can - you simply shut down the
corresponding port at the CO. So CPEs play a significant role in PON domain
availability, while the corresponding functionality in P2P systems reside at
the CO. Therefore, Francois and others conclude that PON CPEs will have to be
of higher reliability grade than P2P CPEs, thus hindering open access, raising
costs, etc.
But: (1) this is only relevant to the
reliability of the CPE transmission circuit (implementation of
an automatic laser shutdown function), and not to general MTBF of the
unit, and (2) service providers might require that all optical
transmitters (including Class 1) have ALS functionality.
So, to summarize, there certainly is
an issue here, but as far as differentiation of PON-P2P is concerned, I don't
believe the extended ALS implementation needed for PON CPE will significantly
impact costs. Furthermore, a P2P vendor that wants to sell to carriers,
will probably find himself implementing some basic form of ALS
anyway.
Regards,
Victor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 3:47
AM
Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P
v EPON
>
>
> Salut
Francois,
>
> > PON would require that the carrier
control
> > and restrict the nature of the terminals being
>
> connected to the network,
> > just like its happening with cable
modems today.
>
> Can you summarize/clarify this - so I don't
have to read the ~60 reports
> referenced;) How would a PON Modem
differ from a DSL Modem or Cable Modem,
> as far as the Carrier
"control" of the terminal box is concerned? For
> example, for me
to get ADSL, SBC requires me to use their Alcatel DSL modem.
> Most
local carriers I can think of (Cable, DSL, etc) currently
>
restrict/control the set-top box, xDSL modem, etc. It sounds like you
have
> lots of experience here, and I'd like to hear the issues.
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Gerry Pesavento
> gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com <mailto:gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com>
> Office 925-245-7647
>
Cell 530-219-1954
>
________________________________________________
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois D. Menard
[mailto:f.menard@muni-ims.qc.ca]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:13 PM
> To: mike.obrien@alloptic.com;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON
>
>
>
> Pure PON is problematic in many more ways that aggregation,
namely CPE
> equipment choice for end-users. PON would require
that the carrier control
> and restrict the nature of the terminals
being connected to the network,
> just like its happening with cable
modems today. Check out
> http://www.crtc.gc.ca/cisc/eng/cisf3g8b.htm for all the contributions on
>
compatibility testing ;)
>
> -=Francois=-
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> mike.obrien@alloptic.com
> Sent: June 8, 2001 8:07 PM
> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
> Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my
argument, but I stand by it.
> Even P2P GigE with 10GE uplinks would
require aggregation in any practical
> access network
implementation. And even if you could do 1:1 aggregation
> ratio but
that would just push the aggregation point further upstream. If
> you
were to implement the 1:1 aggregation ration all the way between
>
endpoints the system would essentially reduce back to the TDM network.
I
> will concede that PON does limit tuning flexibility aggregation
ratio, and
> in cases where this is important P2P will win. But in most
cases it will not
> be an issue.
>
>
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@fourthtrack.com]
>
> Dear Mike
>
> I
think there is a fundamental floor in the logic here. The aggregation
>
ratio (at the CO or POP box) is an implementation specific parameter,
and
> can be tuneable via management from 1:1 (no grading), down to
whatever is
> required. It depends on what the implementer is capable of
implementing, and
> what the customer requirements turn out to
be.
>
> Bob Barrett
> bob.barrett@fiberintheloop.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> mike.obrien@alloptic.com
> Sent: 08 June 2001 21:18
> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
>
>
>
> Pat,
> P2P may offer higher bandwidth from
the subscriber to the CO than
> PON, however it must perform some
aggregation to it's upstream provider. A
> P2P box with 32 1000Mbps
subscriber links will not have 32 x 1000Mbps of
> upstream links. PON
does the 'aggregation' at the splitting point. Overall,
> the PON
subscriber will see essentialy the same bandwidth as P2P subscriber.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly, Pat
[mailto:pat.kelly@intel.com]
>
> Bob,
>
> Sorry if I'm missing
something. I understand that PON systems can burst to
> higher
rates, but a 32 subscriber, one wavelength/direction PON should only
>
be able to provide 1000Mbps/32 or ~30Meg/subscriber (assuming 100%
>
efficiency). This is much closer to VDSL than P2P at
1000Mbps/subscriber.
>
> Of course, PON has significant
advantages over VDSL (higher aggregate data
> rate, upgradeability,
video broadcast capability, etc.), so it should be a
> very compelling
comparison.
>
> Pat
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> N. Patrick Kelly
> Director of
Engineering
> Networking Components Division
> Intel
Corporation
> (916)854-2955
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lund, Bob [mailto:blund@opticalsolutions.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:29 AM
> To: 'Kelly,
Pat'; 'Francois D. Menard'; gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com;
> CarlisleRS@corning.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Cc: DuX@corning.com; FengW@corning.com; JayJA@corning.com;
> KunziAL@corning.com;
MusgroveKD@corning.com;
JPropst@services.corning.com;
> ShanemanK@corning.com;
CSweazey@services.corning.com
> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of
PON vs. P2P
>
> I don't think PON and VDSL provide similar levels
of bandwidth.
>
> Commercial VDSL systems feed curbside nodes
with 155 - 622Mbps and
> distribute asymetric bandwidth with a max of
around 25Mbps per set of
> twisted pair wires. Nodes typically serve
around 30 subscribers. I've not
> seen any developments that suggest
that the 25Mbps max will go up
> substantially.
>
>
Commercial PON systems provide 155 - 1000Mbps to a passive optical
splitter
> that, in turn, feeds up to 32 subscribers, each with 155 -
1000Mbps of
> bandwidth. Bandwidth management protocols enable service
providers to
> control how much of the aggregate PON bandwidth is used
by any subscriber.
> PONs also provide greater upstream bandwidth than
VDSL systems. PONs can
> employ higher clock rate optics and/or CWDM to
increase the amount of
> bandwidth to higher rates, e.g. 4 wavelengths
would provide 4x the
> bandwidth.
>
> Bob Lund
>
Chief Technical Officer
> Optical Solutions Inc.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kelly, Pat
[SMTP:pat.kelly@intel.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:13 PM
> > To:
'Francois D. Menard'; gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com;
> > CarlisleRS@corning.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > Cc: DuX@corning.com; FengW@corning.com; JayJA@corning.com;
> > KunziAL@corning.com;
MusgroveKD@corning.com;
JPropst@services.corning.com;
> > ShanemanK@corning.com;
CSweazey@services.corning.com
> > Subject: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs
of PON vs. P2P
> >
> >
> > PON vs. VDSL seems to be
a more logical comparison than P2P vs. VDSL
> > because
> >
PON and VDSL provide similar levels of service, i.e. bandwidth.
>
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > N. Patrick
Kelly
> > Director of Engineering
> > Networking Components
Division
> > Intel Corporation
> > (916)854-2955
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > -----Original
Message-----
> > From: Francois D. Menard [mailto:f.menard@muni-ims.qc.ca]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:40 AM
> > To:
gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com; CarlisleRS@corning.com;
> > stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > Cc: DuX@corning.com;
FengW@corning.com;
JayJA@corning.com;
> > KunziAL@corning.com; MusgroveKD@corning.com;
JPropst@services.corning.com;
> > ShanemanK@corning.com;
CSweazey@services.corning.com
> > Subject: RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON
vs. P2P
> >
> >
> > > As you can see from the
graph, the PTP vs PTMP costs are sensitive to
> > distance - SBC
calculated PTMP is close to the same at short distance, and
> > 50%
the cost at >5 km. I'd like to know more about what is behind
SBC's
> > data (if it includes equipment costs, I think so). I
noticed that neither
> > you nor Martin Adams mentioned distance; an
important variable.
> >
> > I would like to know to which
extent, cost of P2P has been found to be
> > more
> >
extensive, considering that active equipments could be installed in
the
> > same
> > manner than for VDSL in the street-end
cabinets. I believe that OCCAM is
> > doing this for xDSL.
Aggregating residential P2P on giant fibre bundles
> > may
>
> work in Japan due to house densities, but it is more complex in
>
> North-America, however still remains a serious possibility. I
would
> > rather
> > see P2P compared to VDSL before P2P is
compared to PON.
> >
> > Fundamentally, PON will be subject
to the same myriad of problems that
> > open
> > access on
cable modem plant is subjected to today, which are high-cost
> >
terminals, which can potentially screw up your neighbor's service were
>
> they
> > going to become defective. This has important
implications on
> > architecture
> > and policy for third
party access. Suffice it to say that such problems
> >
are
> > easily solved in P2P, and that I do not believe at all in
comparing costs,
> > while forgetting about estimating the costs of
implementing third party
> > access.
> >
> >
-=Francois=-
> >