RE: [EFM] EFM / DOCSIS comparison
Harry, based on longer-term bandwidth usage trends in any aspect of communications we choose to look at, a 20% savings has an effective life of well under a year before it too is consumed. It is obsolete before it even makes it out of the lab.
Ethernet grows by powers of ten. Thankfully our Ethernet forefathers did not waste time on incremental bandaids for growth. Why does THIS form of waste not qualify for your no waste mantra? Please address this so I may understand your viewpoint.
On your comment of both providers and customers paying for the so-called waste, I guess the terabits of capacity lying in waiting, while resources are devoted to developing 20% incremental improvements are not considered as waste by you? Here too I would like to understand your reasoning; it doesnt make sense to me, for the optical medium.
On your comment that FTTx will require the same functionality if it is to deliver differentiated services in a cost effective manner.
First you say you are not referring to Docsis 1.1, but here you say differentiated services (which are only included in 1.1, and as I said are not deployed or proven) are mandatory via the DOCSIS (1.1) methods which you are pushing for. So you will need to define explicitly what same functionality means, and what these differentiated services are that you are saying Docsis currently provides IN OPERATION, and what cost effective manner means, before I can address your points. They are too ambiguous to me, in their present form, but I would like to understand your view.
In general it appears you have a closed mind to anything that doesnt follow traditional beliefs. Please, please try to open up to new ways of viewing problems. It is important for the success of EFM. Many of the considerations that drove the old ways no longer exist or have lost their relative importance.
======================================
Ramu,
1. DOCSIS 1.1 is more about QoS, link data security and network management.
The MAC protocol
works on DOCSIS 1.0. FTTx will require the same functionality if it is to
deliver differentiated services in a cost effective manner.
2. Conserving b/w on 1 Gbps link will in the end be just as important as on
10 Mbps. I am not a great fan of wasting 20% of anything - and neither would
be the providers or their customers, as both would have to pay for the
waste.
3. The request/grant paradigm includes fixed size allocations without
explicit requests as a special case. In this sense the simple TMDA scheme
brings nothing new to the party.
Harry
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/