RE: [EFM] Banana networks
Ethernet is a facility technology, not a service. Just like ocean water
carrys bananas from island to island, Ethernet will be used to carry
services from service provider to customer.
Wrong topic of metaphors
Roy
At 03:32 PM 12/11/2002 -0800, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>Ethernet isn't like bananas, it's like water.
>
>See: http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t511-s2126581,00.html
>
>I like this metaphor much better.
>
>jonathan
>
>| -----Original Message-----
>| From: Hugh Barrass [mailto:hbarrass@cisco.com]
>| Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:37 AM
>| To: Roy Bynum
>| Cc: Geoff Thompson; Sanjeev Mahalawat; ariel.maislos@passave.com;
>| 'Mccammon, Kent G.'; Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com;
>| stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
>| Subject: Re: [EFM] Banana networks
>|
>|
>|
>| Roy,
>|
>| Much as I hate to argue with a telco old-hand, I think that
>| you are confusing
>| capability and usage as well as ignoring the distinction
>| between edge and core.
>|
>| The tendency over many years in Service Provider networks is
>| to over-provision (in
>| terms of infrastructure capability) at the edge - this allows
>| the possibility of
>| "up-selling" whilst simultaneously over-subscribing in the
>| core - using statistical
>| multiplexing to "get away with it."
>|
>| This creates and provisioning vs subscription pyramid - the amount of
>| over-subscription or over-provisioning depends on where you
>| are in the pyramid. This
>| is not too dissimilar from the architecture of LAN networks
>| where edge connections
>| are underutilized but the core may be oversubscribed. Note
>| that the term
>| "provisioning" here refers to the deployment of
>| infrastructure - not the enabling and
>| management of services (which is a separate topic).
>|
>| Finally, I accept that the range and types of service offered
>| have many requirements
>| beyond simple bandwidth (some of which are legal, rather than
>| technical
>| distinctions). However, the scope of Ethernet is to provide a
>| link - not to control
>| what rides above it - so simple bandwidth is what we deal with.
>|
>| Hugh.
>|
>| Roy Bynum wrote:
>|
>| > Jeff,
>| >
>| > A service subscription network does not work like a
>| privately owned LAN
>| > facility. In a subscription network, there is no such
>| thing as "excess
>| > bandwidth". A copper facility will be provisioned and
>| operate at the
>| > maximum that the distance attenuation will allow. Fiber
>| facilities will be
>| > provisioned to provide the maximum service bandwidth that
>| the customer is
>| > willing to pay for. When more than one customer can be put
>| on the fiber
>| > facility, the service provider will provision the maximum
>| that the fiber
>| > will support, often for packet/frame facilities, the
>| bandwidth will be over
>| > provisioned in the aggregate for all of the customers.
>| This will hold true
>| > for either P2P or P2MP. This is one of the economic realities of
>| > subscription networks. The limitation of how much
>| bandwidth and how many
>| > customers is put on that bandwidth is strictly do to the physical
>| > limitations of the facilities and the willingness of the sales and
>| > marketing people to keep putting people on the same facility.
>| >
>| > The use of "lettuce", "bananas", and "peanuts" was an
>| effort to be able to
>| > indirectly discuss issues of service functionality
>| requirements, which up
>| > until now, have not been fully explored. Since "services"
>| delivery is the
>| > specific purpose of a subscription network, without such a
>| discussion, how
>| > will the group know if they have achieved the basic
>| objective of "Support
>| > Subscriber Access Network ..."
>| >
>| > Thank you,
>| > Roy Bynum
>| >
>| > At 03:46 PM 12/10/2002 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>| >
>| > >Roy-
>| > >I think Hugh is closer to the mark than you are here.
>| > >The Ethernet link to the end user tries to be one simple thing:
>| > > An excess bandwidth connection to the core network and the
>| > > facilities that such a network connects to.
>| > >
>| > >No peanuts vs. bananas, just one thing, excess bandwidth.
>| > >Sort of like a car.
>| > >You got two people in the family you can live with a
>| smaller car than if
>| > >you have seven.
>| > >In either case you buy a car that has at least enough
>| seats for the family.
>| > >In all cases you are buying transportation capacity for
>| your family or a
>| > >subset thereof.
>| > >
>| > >Geoff
>| > >
>| > >At 06:39 PM 12/9/2002 -0600, Roy Bynum wrote:
>| > >
>| > >>Hugh,
>| > >>
>| > >>I think the analogy of the produce stand would be more
>| appropriate, from
>| > >>a service providers standpoint, if you were to make the
>| produce align
>| > >>with the services that are delivered, and then physical
>| stand becomes the
>| > >>delivery infrastructure, of which 802.3ah is a part.
>| From a service
>| > >>providers perspective, he has several stands in different
>| parts of the
>| > >>town that he wants to sell out of.
>| > >>
>| > >>Just like any produce market, you have different kinds of produce,
>| > >>vegetables like lettuce, fruit like bananas, and nuts like
>| > >>peanuts. Sometimes the type of equipment in the stand
>| dictates what
>| > >>kind of produce he can sell, for example, vegetables like
>| lettuce tend to
>| > >>do better in refrigerated coolers than in the open heat,
>| while nuts like
>| > >>peanuts tend to like warm dry storage. Just like a real
>| produce stand,
>| > >>there are some items that people are willing to pay more
>| for than they
>| > >>are for other items. A single head of lettuce brings a
>| lot more than a
>| > >>single peanut. I am sure that every wife would love to
>| pay the cost of a
>| > >>single peanut for a head of lettuce, but they know it
>| does not work that
>| > >>way even though they complain to the grocer. The items
>| that do not sell
>| > >>for as much, must sell in higher quantity to be able to
>| be economical,
>| > >>because produce seller does make as much off of each one that he
>| > >>sells. A grocer does not make as much off of a single
>| peanut as he does
>| > >>a single head of lettuce. Also, the owner of the produce
>| stands needs to
>| > >>be able to supply the produce that meets what the
>| customers want to
>| > >>eat. Trying to change the way the customers eat produce,
>| often does not
>| > >>work. Trying to sell tame "vege-burgers" to someone from
>| the Southwest
>| > >>that is used to hot and spicy meat, would not often work.
>| Those of you
>| > >>with ethnic backgrounds know what I mean. (I am including
>| Texans like me
>| > >>that prefer beef steaks to turkey.)
>| > >>
>| > >>The produce stand owner needs to be sure that his stands
>| can either sell
>| > >>the produce that he makes more off of, or that the
>| produce that he makes
>| > >>less off of can have a higher quantity supply. Or he has
>| to have stands
>| > >>that will sell all kinds of produce.
>| > >>
>| > >>This is where the equipment in the stand becomes very
>| important. If the
>| > >>produce stand owner simply buys a type of equipment for
>| his stand tries
>| > >>to sell whatever can be carried by that equipment, while
>| someone else
>| > >>builds stands with different equipment that will sell
>| either the better
>| > >>produce, or be able to deliver a higher quantity of the
>| lessor produce,
>| > >>then the original owner of the produce stands will have economic
>| > >>problems. This makes it not only important for the
>| makers of the produce
>| > >>stand equipment to be aware of the issues, but also the
>| owner of the
>| > >>produce stands needs to pay closer attention to what the
>| customers are
>| > >>buying so as to make sure that he is building the right
>| kind of produce stands.
>| > >>
>| > >>In this analogy, 802.3ah becomes the equipment in the
>| produce stand. The
>| > >>different kinds of produce are different kinds of
>| services. Just like
>| > >>there are certain kinds of produce that people are
>| willing to pay more
>| > >>for, there are services that people are willing to pay
>| more for. The
>| > >>services that they are not willing to pay more for must be able to
>| > >>deliver at a higher quantity than the higher cost
>| services. 802.3ah in
>| > >>the different media must be able to deliver either higher quality
>| > >>services, or high quantity services. I am sure that the service
>| > >>providers would like to migrate their customers to the
>| higher quantity
>| > >>services, but many times that does not work for customers
>| that are used
>| > >>to the higher quality. It is very difficult to change
>| the way that people eat.
>| > >>
>| > >>Thank you,
>| > >>Roy Bynum
>| > >>
>| > >>At 08:55 AM 12/9/2002 -0800, Hugh Barrass wrote:
>| > >>
>| > >>>Sanjeev,
>| > >>>
>| > >>>Good to see that you've introduced perishable fruit into
>| the discussion
>| > >>>- more
>| > >>>relevant than many people expect...
>| > >>>
>| > >>>If you have a fruit stand selling your bananas then you
>| have a difficult
>| > >>>problem
>| > >>>to decide how many bananas to start each day with (for
>| simplicity I will
>| > >>>assume
>| > >>>that you can choose to have your banana delivery each
>| morning and also that
>| > >>>bananas decompose at the end of each day). You may make
>| a reasonable
>| > >>>guess at how
>| > >>>many you will sell on average, but you can't predict how
>| many you will
>| > >>>sell on a
>| > >>>given day. So what should you do?
>| > >>>
>| > >>>You could err on the conservative side - only buy
>| "enough" bananas so
>| > >>>that on some
>| > >>>days you have a few bananas left over, on other days you
>| run out before
>| > >>>closing
>| > >>>time. This way you minimize the wastage. The downside is
>| that on many days
>| > >>>customers arrive and are disappointed. Those customers may look
>| > >>>elsewhere for
>| > >>>their bananas and discover the other fruit stand that
>| doesn't run out -
>| > >>>you've
>| > >>>lost a regular customer that will reduce your average sales.
>| > >>>
>| > >>>Alternatively, you could over-provision. You buy more
>| than the average
>| > >>>number of
>| > >>>bananas with a view to minimizing the number of days
>| when customers are
>| > >>>turned
>| > >>>away. This will mean a larger wastage of bananas which
>| can be weighed
>| > >>>against the
>| > >>>better overall sales figure. The advantage is that you
>| are buying the
>| > >>>bananas
>| > >>>wholesale and selling them retail (plus tax).
>| > >>>
>| > >>>The Ethernet Solution
>| > >>>==============
>| > >>>
>| > >>>Network provisioning is a similar problem. Bandwidth
>| must be provisioned but
>| > >>>cannot be carried over from one day to the next - it is
>| the ultimate
>| > >>>"perishable
>| > >>>resource."
>| > >>>
>| > >>>Ethernet aims to make the bananas so cheap that the cost
>| per banana can
>| > >>>(almost)
>| > >>>be ignored. You massively over-provision, you never need
>| to turn away
>| > >>>customers
>| > >>>and the wastage is forgotten. As you approach the point
>| when there is a
>| > >>>possibility of turning away customers, you implement QOS
>| (reserving
>| > >>>bananas for
>| > >>>your best repeat customers) to keep things going a bit
>| longer. Then you
>| > >>>simply
>| > >>>order the next biggest box - the Ethernet advantage is
>| that much higher
>| > >>>speeds at
>| > >>>small increments in cost are available because a
>| simplistic approach
>| > >>>allows us to
>| > >>>ride the technology curve.
>| > >>>
>| > >>>So, whether it's networks or bananas, you need to take
>| the approach that
>| > >>>a simple
>| > >>>(and apparently wasteful) approach will often beat the
>| theoretical
>| > >>>optimization
>| > >>>that complicates unnecessarily.
>| > >>>
>| > >>>Hugh.
>| > >>>
>| > >>>PS - anyone want to buy some bananas?
>| > >>>
>| > >>>Sanjeev Mahalawat wrote:
>| > >>>
>| > >>> > Ariel,
>| > >>> >
>| > >>> > At 12:23 AM 12/6/2002 -0800, Ariel Maislos wrote:
>| > >>> >
>| > >>> > >Sanjeev,
>| > >>> >
>| > >>> > Sorry I am leaving out your economic and i-bubble
>| content as I seem to be
>| > >>> > unable to answer it. :)
>| > >>> >
>| > >>> > >Under these circumstances I would argue that 1% more
>| bandwidth is not
>| > >>> > >equal to 1% more bananas from each subscriber, or 1%
>| more subscribers
>| > >>> > >for that matter.
>| > >>> >
>| > >>> > One buys x bananas and sells only x-1 and saves 1 for
>| oneself in case
>| > >>> one gets
>| > >>> > hungry and if one does not get hungry throw away.
>| Thats not increase
>| > >>> > that is loss. Now, one starts with only x-1 (low) and
>| pay more that
>| > >>> may be
>| > >>> > different
>| > >>> > choice.
>| > >>> >
>| > >>> > >1% more bandwidth is equal to XX more bananas in
>| transceiver costs as we
>| > >>> > >are not allowed to leverage the economies of scale
>| inherent in Gigabit
>| > >>> > >Ethernet, a market that has significantly more
>| volume than a future
>| > >>> > >ITU-T market.
>| > >>> >
>| > >>> > Agree if one can get x bananas from A (IEEE) in less
>| money than x-1 (from
>| > >>> > ITU-T)
>| > >>> > and could make same or more money even has to throw 1
>| or more bananas, it
>| > >>> > may make sense to buy cheap to some.
>| > >>> >
>| > >>> > Thanks,
>| > >>> > Sanjeev
>| > >>> >
>| > >>> > >Ariel
>| > >>> > >
>| > >>> > >
>| > >>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>| > >>> > > > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
>| > >>> > > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]
>| On Behalf Of
>| > >>> > > > Sanjeev Mahalawat
>| > >>> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 19:34
>| > >>> > > > To: ariel.maislos@passave.com
>| > >>> > > > Cc: 'Mccammon, Kent G.'; Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com;
>| > >>> > > > stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org;
>| wdiab@cisco.com
>| > >>> > > > Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone
>| Conference, December 5th
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > > At 02:51 PM 12/5/2002 -0800, Ariel Maislos wrote:
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > > >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?
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > > SP should do the calculation. But it is tempting
>| to see the money
>| > >>> > > > difference, so just that.
>| > >>> > > > This 1.2% translates to about 11.616 Mbps, around 7.5
>| > >>> > > > 1.54Mbps DSL connections. Assuming $50 per DSL it
>| is around
>| > >>> > > > $377/PON/month. Assume one 32-port OLT
>| > >>> > > > serving
>| > >>> > > > 1024 customers (assuming 1:32 ratio) it would be
>| > >>> > > > $12064/month. Does this SP lost revenue breaks their neck,
>| > >>> > > > they would know?
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > > Thanks,
>| > >>> > > > Sanjeev
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > >
>| > >>> > > > >Regards,
>| > >>> > > > > Ariel
>| > >>> > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>| > >>> > > > > > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
>| > >>> > > > > >
>| [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
>| > >>> > > > > > Mccammon, Kent G.
>| > >>> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 17:45
>| > >>> > > > > > To: 'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com';
>| stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
>| > >>> > > > > > Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
>| > >>> > > > > > Subject: RE: [EFM] PON Optics Telephone
>| Conference, December 5th
>| > >>> > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > 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@infineon.com
>| > >>> > > > > > > [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com]
>| > >>> > > > > > > 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
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > > >
>| > >>> > > > > >
>| > >>> > > >
>|
>|