Re: [Pals] What should we do with draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon

[Edwin Mallette <[e-mail]>]

To add my two cents, IEEE 1904.1 addressed specific layer2 messaging to
enable PON protection for EPON access networks for both tree protection and
trunk protection.  I agree with Hongyu that trunk protection (Type B) is the
most typical protection method in PON deployment.  Similar to the ITU-T,
IEEE1904.1 left a hole for trunk protection as the inter-system sync method
was not defined and was determined to be out of scope of the project.  This
was left to other SDOs/future projects to address.

And to respond to Stewarts question about multiple vendors in the PON space,
we (as an network operator) currently have three different vendors EPON OLTs
deployed and in production.  One goal of IEEE1904.1 was to enable
interoperability and we have had quite a bit of success there.

Regards.

Ed

From:  "Hongyu Li (Julio)" <[e-mail]>
Date:  Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 8:31 AM
To:  "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>
Cc:  "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: [Pals] What should we do with draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon

With my knowledge in PON and Access Network, Type-B protection is the most
typical protection method in PON deployment and is the most cost-effective
one. As PON technology is providing bandwidth up to 10 Gbps, it can be
applied to more scenarios than ever. ITU-T has left a big hole for type-B to
be deployed at large without defining the method of sync between two OLT
devices. Obviously, IETF is in a much better position to fill the gap by
enhancing ICCP. 
 
Fully support this draft moving forward.
 
Hongyu
 

From: Pals [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:30 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [Pals] What should we do with draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon
 

The authors of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon/
have asked us to start a poll for WG adoption. However before we do this
I think that we as a WG need discuss the right way forward for this draft.

In looking at the history of the draft I discover that there has been almost
no technical discussion on the list.

If I look back at the minutes I find:

@ IETF 90

YJS: how much is deployed with the 2:n splitters?
Ed: Bright House would probably do it. The splitter would be in house as
it solves other issues.  PON is growing, but not a great deal deployed
in NA cable.
Yuanlong: used for small cell backhaul. Can protect a bunch of small
cells.
YJS: so far interest in, but not deployed.  2:N splitter needs to resynch.
Why do we need if phy not there.
Andy: please provide comments to the list.
Matthew: readers? 4, only one commenter on the list

and @ IETF 91

Edwin presented the slides
No comments.
The call for WG adoption will be carried to the email list.
The Chairs noted interest in the meetings and on the list.

In the last remark we may have been mistaken given that  all I
can find are eight emails up to this point excluding automatic notifications
and emails from the authors asking the chairs to take an action.

In looking at the draft, the only IANA actions are in the ICC RG
parameter registry which has Expert Review or FCFS codepoint
ranges, thus there is no need for a standards track RFC or indeed
any RFC from this point of view.

In looking at the subject matter itself, I wonder whether this
is a technology where it is expected there will be multi-vendor
deployment within a PON domain requiring multi-vendor
interworking of this feature.

The IESG have recently been pushing back on the publication of
drafts that have limited support, and thus we need to be in
a position to justify moving forward with this draft on whatever
stream we decide is best.

Given the above, I would like to understand the views of the
WG on which stream is most appropriate for this work:

PALS WG - Standards Track

PALS WG - Informational

AD sponsored

Independent Stream

What are the views of the PALS WG on how we should move forward
and why?

- Stewart
_______________________________________________ Pals mailing list
[e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals