NEC Comments on the Draft Wholesale Service Definition Framework Ethernet

NEC Comments on the Draft Wholesale Service Definition Framework Ethernet

NEC comments on the draftWholesale Service Definition Framework – Ethernet

From: Julian Ho
Sent: Thursday, 3 December 2009 10:47 AM
Subject: NEC's Comments on Wholesale Service Definition Framework - Ethernet

Hi Ben,

Below are NEC’s comments on v 0.18 of the Wholesale service definition framework – Ethernet. I’ve denoted which comments are technical (T) and editorial (E). Given the nature of these comments we would be pleased to discuss these comments offline outside the Wholesale Service meetings.



Pg 2, 1.1.1: (E) Recommend creating a separate section to describe the roles of the BAP, BBP, and BIP.

Pg 2, 1.1.1: (E) The usage of roles makes this document difficult to follow. Re-consider the use of BAP, BBP, and BIP throughout the document. Defining roles has value, however, it would be preferable to describe the wholesale service offerings in relation to each PoI.

Pg 10, 3.4: (T) The ELAs service should allow for Transparent LAN Services, this service is not fully explored in the document.

Pg 10, Table 2: (E) Recommend to remove this table as it doesn’t add much value in addition to Figure 3.

Pg 10, Table 2: (E) Change 802.1q to 802.1Q. Remove native Ethernet. 802.1Q includes untagged, priority and VLAN tagged. Include 802.2 and Ethernet II framing

Pg 10, Table 2: (E) Change ONT to NT.

Pg 11, 3.3.1 b): (T) Need to define the term aggregation, e.g. “combining into a group, independent of contention”

Pg 14, 4.2.1: (E)Define EVC

Pg 14, 4.2.3: (E) The ELAS service is based around MEF service definitions, Broadband Forum contribution in this document is only VLAN and forwarding models.

Pg 15, 4.2.8: (T) The ELAS service attributes should mimic the MEF service attributes, including admissible frame types (broadcast, multicast, flood) and L2 control protocol processing (block, tunnel).

Pg 17, 4.2.24: (T) Can you please refer to where this has been standardised.

Pg 18, 4.2.29: (E) Change to “all traffic is treated in respect to a single in-profile...”

Pg 18, 4.2.35: (T) Remove the upper limit of four.

Pg 18, 4.2.37: (T) This section should be describe how the ELAS is identified at the ONT (PoI 3); Ethernet port, or Ethernet port and 802.1Q VLAN-ID.

Pg 18, 4.2.37: (T) Remove the restrictive reference to the usage of the TR-101 1:1 VLAN model.

Pg 18, 4.2.38: (T) Need to also describe the identification at PoI 3, the C-TAG and S-TAG identification are not relevant at PoI 3.

Pg 22, 4.4.1: (T) Recommend using the MEF definition of E-Tree, this service is already defined. TR-101 refers only to the VLAN and forwarding models, not a service description.

Pg 22, 4.4.1: (T) Please add the option for IGMP proxying.

Pg 23, 4.4.8: (T) Please elaborate further on this statement, it’s not .

Pg 23, 4.4.11: (T) Rather than describe the bandwidth profiles this section should start with the service attributes, i.e. allowed traffic types, CIR/PIR ingress/egress, user-premises connectivity, number user premises etc.

Pg 24, 5.2.1: (T) Having more than one ELAS operational on a end-user premises should be a recommendation rather than being desirable.

Pg 25, 5.4.3: (T) Unclear what the relationship is with the “ELAS Port Bandwidth” and the ELAS services. It suggests that the PoI 3a “ELAS Port Bandwidth” has its own bandwidth profile independent to the ELAS that it carries. If so, is this part of the ELAS or ELBS service? Our expectation that this is part of the ELBS service. Furthermore, it is unclear who the “SLA of the 3a PoI that an WSA chooses for the ELAS to transit” is with.

Pg 25, Figure 12: (T) Please clearly define the demarcation point at the PoI, from the diagram it appears to be within the EAS. A demarcation line would clarify that it is the physical port.

Pg 26, 5.5.1: (T) Wholesale services will be differentiated on availability, with redundancy being an implementation option to improve availability. Recommend replacing redundancy with a section on availability, describing availability as a service attribute, and furthermore potential implementation options, e.g. local PoI redundancy, geographic PoI redundancy, Ring topologies, OAM functions etc,

Pg 28, 6.1.3: (T) More details are needed in the description of the PoI 3.

Pg 28, 6.1.3: (T) Please include the option that an ELAS terminates on a dedicated port.

Pg 28, 6.1.3: (T) Please include the option that an ELAS can terminate VLAN tagged.

NBN/WS/09/00x 03Dec09Page 1