RE: FW: [EFM] EFM Requirements
Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
> Here is my current argument on compatibility with DOCSIS:
> 1) That EFM be DHCP compatible. If there is any configuration of the
> client premises equipment (CPE), it be via DHCP. the CPE should
> support the features that DOCSIS supports, such as "relay agent".
DHCP is a great abobination compared to the Neighbourhood Discovery
Protocol of IPv6. However, I agree that IPv4 DHCP needs to be
> 2) That if a configuration is loaded for the CPE, the loading follow
the DOCSIS protocol state machine and message formats and tftp be
TFTP is fundamentally insecure. I would prefer a more secure protocol.
How about PXE instead (Programmable eXecution Environment), which is
used increasingly on thin clients and on PC's. PXE is secure and
> 3) That if the CPE is capable of being monitored, that SMNP be used
and that the DOCSIS MIB be supported.
SNMPv3 at least & that the management VLAN be made available through an
open access point of interconnection & that an EFM MIB be developed (not
just rubber stamping DOCSIS). I would consider the DOCSIS MIB to be a
good start off point, however there needs to be more messages conveyed
at Layer 2 than in DOCSIS, especially as it pertains to link
failure/resume, signal levels, etc.
> Think of all the dial-up providers that wanted to do DSL using their
legacy dial-up backends. Radius auth, PPPoE and PPPoA are a greater
abomination that DOCSIS will ever be. Ooophs, apologies for slipping
the opinon vigorously stated as fact in there....
I'm sorry, but DOCSIS Session Identifier to Lable Switched Path (MPLS)
mapping is an abobination as well. This is the strategy that all cable
carriers are employing to enable open access now. I wonder to which
extent is Cablelabs standardizing this behaviour in a CMTS.
The only form of third party access at Layer 2 involves scalable
management of lots of VLANs. And we have yet to even begin discussing
how many VLAN's we're going to need and if the 12 bit limit in 802.1Q is