RE: [EFM] EFM / DOCSIS comparison
my latest comments prefixed with >>>
"With all due respect to those that have worked (and are still
working) on getting certifiable DOCSIS 1.1 products, DOCSIS 1.1 is not a proven proocol in real operation. It is still being "adjusted" in the labs. It may well turn out just as Roy has said other attempts in the past have. Reinventing DOCSIS is NOT what those trying to maintain a simple TDMA scheme seek".
Ramu, with no offence, its true that no DOCSIS 1.1 products have been
certified yet but I consider DOCSIS 1.1 as an advanced technology being developed ahead of its time to cater for the future.
>>>Rehan, you read too many CableLabs press releases. Complex? Yes.
Ahead of its time? Maybe some years ago it was. It is already
inadequate for the future, and has been for some time. Surely you
agree with this or you wouldnt be in this forum. So long as cable
and DSL are the only access methods available for consumers, this
smokescreen that it is adequate can be maintained. It cant be
proven inadequate because it is all there is. It is STILL the
bottleneck, standing in the way of REAL growth.
It is nothing but
DOCSIS 1.0 with enhancements on the QoS and security side. Its only a
matter of time before they would get introduced.
>>>It was advanced technology ahead of its time a second ago; now
it is nothing but enhanced 1.0? One thing it is, is over a year late
and still counting. Same situation happened with 1.0. This speaks
quite well to the complexity that lies below the guidelines that are
called specifications. It was only a matter of time and just on
the horizon a year ago. Same story with 1.0. Complexity was a key
factor in these delays, as was figuring the right way to test. If EFM
takes this same path, WDM will be the desired solution by the time
it is "market ready."
"It is also possible that those who have spent years buried in cable modems are not "thinking outside the box" with respect to EFM and optical fiber. There are some very dis-similar attributes. DOCSIS required a conservationist view, as do all copper media."
No offense again, but I think they are not following the motto - do an easy job now and rethink later.
>>>Really? Then what was DOCSIS 1.0? It was the "easy" subset,
with 1.1 going back and adding what was left out. It was an undercut
to IEEE802.14, which was deemed too slow and complex a process, yet
1.1 now has nearly all the elements of 802.14. Arguably 802.14 would
have been already completed had it continued instead of bowing out,
but that is a whole different discussion.
"But, isn't it telling that EFM-over-fiber can WASTE more bandwidth across 16-32 users than DOCSIS has in total for 1000, and still outperform DOCSIS by orders of magnitude?"
The planned split is 16 or 32 currently - who knows what the future may hold - maybe 512 splits, maybe even 1024.
>>>You are kidding, right? Surely you dont see HIGHER split ratios
as an UPGRADE path!
The envisioned implementation will not
scale, so the 20% bandwidth boost due to DBA can certainly help in this case.
>>>That is a rather bold statement against the foresight of the EFM
group. Maybe you can offer your facts why it (whatever "it" is) will not scale? And why
would a 20% bandwidth boost impact scaling? Allows you to scale 3
months growth into the future?
>>>Aside from these, what are your thoughts on ranging (both initial and periodic), relative to DOCSIS, and how much of that you would import. Also I'd be curious to hear your suggested way to include the contention request mechanism of DOCSIS.
thanks and best regards,
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!