Re: [EFM] OAM developing Geoff's observation.
Fletcher,
There are a lot of ISP based SPs that are creating a lot of noise. Is it
because they are falling prey to the ".com" syndrome? Could it be that
they do not have the ability to deliver a high margin service and do not
want others to realize that? What about the rest of the industry? What is
the reality of the rest of the industry? What are service requirements for
business versus those for residential?
Think about this simple fact. The vast majority of small to medium size
businesses that have multiple sites on an enterprise network, use several
"Private Line" or "Virtual Private Line" links to make up their enterprise
networks. Most of them however only have one Internet type link. If
people simple think thing through and realize how their own enterprise
networks are deployed, they would realize what the real priority for EFM
supporting business deployment should be. In this environment slightly
higher costs can be justified to obtain better efficiency. For example,
in the P2MP PMD, this is where it makes sense to look at TDMA.
For deployment to residential services, there are other issues. Only the
voice service is symmetrical. The Internet service to residential
customers is normally very asymmetrical. The video/broadcast services are
simplex. This will make for a very different infrastructure and cost model
than business services. Other than for the voice, PPPoE may work very
well. The real question is, can a service provider make any money in this
domain? It means that there can be a major trade off to have lower
efficiency in order to have lower costs? This is where the P2MP PMD using
a poll grant uplink management instead of the TDMA may make sense.
I do not think that there is any one answer for all types of services
deployments. I think that there may be an OAM functionality that support
one type of service but not both residential and business. I think that
there is also a common OAM functionality that can be used for both
residential and business that then gets put on top of the PMDs that would
separate the residential and business infrastructure models. Does this
mean that there may need to be two different P2MP PMDs, one for business
infrastructure, and another for residential? Maybe.
At 08:41 AM 9/17/01 -0400, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:27:42 -0500 Roy Bynum wrote:
> > Note, there is not an option between IP and PPP. IP is a layer 3
> protocol,
> > PPP is a data link protocol for IP that we are replacing with Ethernet.
>
>Roy;
>
> For what it is worth, many Service Providers (SP) seem to have
>become enamored with PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) in their current
>networks. It sounds like lots of folk plan to run PPPoE over EFM.
>
> Personally, I think PPPoE is a bad design. It makes me
>slightly ill to think of the people out there who run PPPoE over
>Ethernet over ATM. Yes, there are ADSL SPs who do this. At the next
>802.3ah meeting, I was thinking of trying to put together an informal
>discussion, some sort of BOF, poster display or "stump the chump"
>session where I would be willing to make the statement "anything you
>can do with PPPoE I can do better using another properly designed IP
>protocol" and defend the statement.
>
> Having said all that, there are many things worse than PPPoE
>and I don't think it is a deadly combination to run, just
>inefficient and poor design.
>
> So if your statement above is meant to start a vigorous
>discussion, count me in and I want to be on your team. If it is meant
>as a statement of fact, I think you will find a bunch of SP's who will
>not agree.
>
>regards,
>fletcher