Re: [EFM] Standards assumptions - was PMD considerations
I think you are absolutely right, it is not in traditions of standard bodies
(at least ITU, ANSI, ETSI) to pick up a technology from a particular vendor. We
always try to incorporate the best features of the proposed solutions as much as
it is possible. I hope in IEEE we are going to work in the same way.
"Kaufman, Dave" wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. I would like to make one clarification with
> regards to your concerns over single vendor technology being rubber stamped.
> 100BaseCU Multi-Mode is NOT a single vendor solution. It is in fact a
> multi-vendor technology which utilizes the strengths of both TDD and FDD
> multiplexing in an attempt to provide the best possible solution to address
> the broadest possible market for the service provider.
> This hybrid technology will require collaborative efforts on the part of the
> vendor community to realize the best possible standard and subsequent
> products. After all, without the success of the service provider, it's all
> an academic exercise.
> As far as interoperability goes, it is to everyone's to make this happen,
> where possible, however, it should not be done to the exclusion of improving
> the art and giving you better tools with which to generate revenue.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bradford Martin [mailto:bmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 2:39 PM
> To: Hugh Barrass; fkittred@xxxxxxx
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [EFM] Standards assumptions - was PMD considerations
> I do not think any of us service providers expect or want the standards body
> to simply "rubber stamp" EoVDSL, 100Base-Cu, or 10Base-T4. I would hope the
> IEEE will define a standard that incorporates the best features of all, not
> a standard that is convenient just because it happens to be identical to
> somebody's existing model.
> I think we are also all intelligent enough to realize that each vendor
> (whether they have a "bridge" logo or a swooshy "e" logo) will be looking
> out for their own best interest.
> I would agree with your statement that we service providers are taking a
> risk by implementing "non-standard" or "pre-standard" technology in a
> real-world environment. Nonetheless, as an equipment vendor I am sure that
> you have a certain appreciation for those of us who are willing to take that
> risk -- whether it be a particular flavor of EFM technology or the yet-to-be
> solidified MPLS standard (Which certain vendors are already "guaranteeing"
> will be fully compatible with the resultant standard).
> We service providers fully realize that not all technologies succeed,
> however, if we wish to remain competitive, we must take "calculated risks"
> and look to new technologies that not only appear to be promising but also
> appear likely to succeed. We all took a risk when PCM modem technology was
> first introduced - including the equipment vendors. Then the service
> providers cursed the equipment vendors while the battle dragged on between
> X2 and K-Flex. We all breathed a sigh of relief when V.90 was decided upon.
> Fortunately for us all, the ITU had the good sense to dictate that there
> should be some degree of backward compatibility between the new V.90
> standard and the existing "pre-standard" technologies.
> I think the V.90 experience has a great deal of relevance to the current EFM
> over copper situation. A standard needs to be defined ASAP because there is
> already a great deal of equipment in the field that is similar in concept
> and functionality, but is not compatible. Furthermore the IEEE should show
> the same good sense as the ITU in dictating that the eventual EFM standard
> should provide some sort of backward compatibility for the interim period
> until all equipment is upgraded to the new standard.
> I think Fletcher's points are equally valid whether he purchases
> pre-standard equipment from vendor E or from vendor C. I don't think it is
> all that unreasonable of Fletcher to expect that his pre-standard equipment
> will in some fashion be compatible with the new standard. Whether I buy from
> vendor E or vendor C, I would expect them to either fit their equipment to
> the new standard, or buy back my old equipment, or lose my business to
> vendor XYZ.
> If we look back a few years, there were a lot of ISP's and consumers who
> were already using K-Flex modems and a lot who were already using X2 modems.
> Nobody seemed to think back then that it was OK to tell all those consumers
> with "pre-standard/non-standard" equipment that they were just SOL when the
> standard was defined.
> I do not mean to imply that the standards process should be driven by what
> any ISP, CLEC, or ILEC is already doing in their network, but we cannot
> escape the fact that there are a lot of ISP's and consumers who are already
> using "pre-standard" equipment and that the longer it takes the IEEE to
> define a standard, the more "pre-standard" equipment there will be out there
> to contend with.
> Best regards,
> Bradford Martin
> Ace Communications Group