Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements [really Oregon Trail Etherloop?]
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:23:59 -0400 "Matthew Byrd" wrote:
> I won't get into a sales pitch here, but I feel it's important to interject
> in here that Etherloop is not the only Ethernet-based DSL technology
> available. My company, Net to Net Technologies, has been delivering
> Ethernet-based DSL technology for nearly 3 years now. That is Ethernet over
> SDSL, IDSL, T1/E1, as well as DS3/E3. It is true Ethernet at Layer 2,
> running over the Layer 1 technologies listed above. We have been able to
> service many rural telcos for many of the same reasons Frank mentions below.
> Our technology delivers all of the benefits of Ethernet with all of the
> spectral compatibility previously defined by DSL specs. We've been able to
> deliver service (albeit at lower speeds) on loops up to 27,000 feet. I
> would argue that we are also a "best of breed" technology for 802.3 EFM.
Matthew;
Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your product run
on top of [ISA]DSL? That would make it the equivalent of say Ethernet
over ATM. Ethernet over ATM is a fine product, but it is not suitable
for a model for replacing ATM. My sense is that by specifying
[ISA]DSL as the carrier means you inherit all the disadvantages of the
underlying physical level protocol. I think that with the EFM Cu
specification, a native physical layer protocol is in order.
From my perspective: Net to Net Technologies has a truly
superior product suite which I would chose in a heartbeat for the very
reason that it is physical layer neutral. Your stuff runs on just
about every line type available (which means carriers like us have
lots of choices.) However, it also means Net2Net just not a good
basis for EFM Cu. Of course, this might just be a symptom of my lack
of understanding of how your product works.
regards,
fletcher