[EFM] unsubscribe

[James Reilly <reilly6@worldnet.att.net>]

 
deployment?  What will be the flow through provisioning model for p-t-p?

Thanks.

-faye

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois D. Menard [mailto:f.menard@muni-ims.qc.ca]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 8:25 PM
To: gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com; f.menard@muni-ims.qc.ca;
mike.obrien@alloptic.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON
 

> Can you summarize/clarify this - so I don't have to read the ~60 reports
referenced;)

You can check HSCO053A as a starter (there's a B version, much cleaner, not
on the site, that I could rather mail to you or ne1).  Little of it is
directly relevant to EFM, except that it backs up my statement that pure PON
is less preferable than P2P when having to implement open access.   Costs of
issues associated with having to implement Open Access may offset the
savings of PON (unless by some magic the costs of a PON solution is still
significantly cheaper than the costs of enabling P2P by adding more fibre,
OSP support structures and field active equipment & cabinets).  Prices for
PON CPE is still way high IMHO. 5 years of attempting to implement open
access on cable modem plants, and 6 months of intense efforts, have resulted
in this basic argument of "meaning of terminal to network compatibility".

-=Francois=-

begin:vcard 
n:Reilly;James
tel;work:(732) 706-9460
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Reilly Associates
adr:;;PO Box 838;Red Bank;NJ;07701;
version:2.1
email;internet:reilly6@worldnet.att.net
x-mozilla-cpt:;-2640
fn:Reilly, James
end:vcard