Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[IEEE1904.1] Powersaving adhoc CC #2 info



Hi Jeff,

 

Is the meeting at midnight sharp or 1 AM ? That 0001 GMT looks weird :P

 

Regarding the topics for discussion:

 

-          I think we need to define what the terms dozing, cyclic sleep and deep sleep mean for us. Do we use G.sup45 definitions or modify something in here ?

 

-          I would like to understand as well what the advantage of the MAC Control over OAM channel is for sleep signalling.

1.       Given the configurability of the OAM frame rate (it is not up to the operator to decide how many frames per second are to be generated), I am not sure where the advantages of the MAC Control lie.

2.       Additionally, something that is a strong argument against MAC Control, it is not backward compatible with 1G-EPON hardware. Unless we expect to force silicon respin for SIEPON compatible hardware, we should use signalling solutions which are available in legacy equipment and which can be adapted to our needs through firmware upgrade. 10G-EPON is less of a problem but the solutions SIEPON WG produces MUST be by definition, applicable to both 1G-EPON and 10G-EPON. Otherwise we would be going against our own PAR.

3.       That said, I would like to move that we use eOAM as the control channel for power saving mechanism.

4.       I also understand you will be distributing some slides on Monday. Do they address comparison between these solutions or there are other proposals on the table that I am not yet aware of?

 

-          OLT-initiated versus ONU-initiated sleep:

1.       in my opinion, the ONU in EPON has always been considered a slave device with limited processing capabilities. I would like to see it remain that way. We have an example of alternative specifications which pack many functions onto the ONU leading to both device complexity, added cost and what’s more important – device interop problems.

2.       The fewer the functions on the ONU, the simpler it is to interoperate with the OLT. I am strongly in favour of the OLT driven approach. The ONU is told what to do and not what it feels like doing. OLT is never more than 200 us away from knowing that the ONU is running without any traffic, which should be sufficient to guarantee very reasonable efficiency of the protocol.

 

Hope to see some discussion on the reflector (it has been awfully quiet in here recently)

 

Regards

 

Marek Hajduczenia

 

From: Jeff Mandin [mailto:Jeff_Mandin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 24 September 2010 11:07
To: STDS-P1904-1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IEEE1904.1] Powersaving adhoc CC #2 info

 

The date was incorrect in the previous announcement.

 

Please see corrected announcement below:

 

 

 

Dear all,

 

1.       The next CC of the powersaving adhoc is scheduled for Wednesday Sept 29, at 0001 GMT (that’s Tuesday Sept 28 in the US)

 

2.       Access Numbers:

 

US/Canada: 800-747-5150

Japan:  00531001555

China: 800-8190299

Israel: 1-809-458705  

Korea:  00308140429  

Portugal: 800-780604

 

 

Meeting code: 8276114

 

3.  Topics for discussion:

 

* Options for control protocol (I will distribute these slides by Monday)

 

* ONU-initiated wakeup (Seiji Kozaki/Ryan Hirth)

 

* Answers to outstanding questions on Deep Sleep (Duane Remein)

 

     - Deep sleep questions included:  Is it just longer sleep times or is there something else required for support?  What is the benefit over deregistering and reregistering?

 

 

4.   Scheduling:  0000 GMT and 0400 GMT are times which work well for the US West Coast and for Asia.  We will be alternating between these two times.

 

  

 

Thanks and Best Regards,

 

Jeff Mandin

PMC-Sierra