1 / 5

Use cases for MAP-T draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-02

Use cases for MAP-T draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-02. V. Kuarsingh - Rogers Communications E . Mallette - Bright House Networks R. Maglione , W. Dec – Cisco Systems. Main changes -02. Generalized the text from BNG to Edge device/ Edge network:

braith
Download Presentation

Use cases for MAP-T draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-02

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use cases for MAP-Tdraft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-02 V. Kuarsingh - Rogers CommunicationsE. Mallette - Bright House Networks R. Maglione, W. Dec – Cisco Systems

  2. Main changes -02 • Generalized the text from BNG to Edge device/ Edge network: • Rationale is to cover not only BNG for DSL environments, but also CMTS for cable networks, OLT for PON scenarios, PDN Gateway for mobile networks • Modified the structure of the document: • Section 2: existing section about “Operational Service Policy use cases” • New sub-section 2.2 about “Device Configuration / DOCSIS” • Section 3: new section about “Technological Considerations “, describing issues related to packet overhead and MTU

  3. Challenges with MTU/overhead • Jumbo Frame support in the Access Network: • Point-to-Multipoint connectivity model is common across access network - DOCSIS, EPON, GPON, etc. • Point-to-Multipoint networks (legacy products) have limited support for jumbo frames • Tools like MTU discovery or TCP MSS are not enough • Overhead and Service Level Agreement (SLA) • adding new overhead introduces challenges for operators in being able to meet the SLA • Over-provisioning or "not guaranteed" bandwidth are sub-optimal approaches • Reduction in effective capacity on the wire yields higher cost for the operator • In summary: less overhead is better for the operators

  4. Next Steps • Adopt the draft as Working Group item?

  5. Questions? Thanks!

More Related