RE: Objectives and [EFM] Banana networks

["Jonathan Thatcher" <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

:sarcasm on.

I guess that I will have to forward this message to all those who are doing exactly what the note below says can't be done. If they are in  violation with the quoted definitions on the Cisco web site, then they simply must cease providing multiple services from multiple providers over a common Ethernet infrastructure immediately lest the old model fall apart. What were they thinking?

:sarcasm off.

Merry holidays to all,

jonathan

| -----Original Message-----
| From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
| Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 5:40 PM
| To: Geoff Thompson
| Cc: Hugh Barrass; Sanjeev Mahalawat; ariel.maislos@xxxxxxxxxxx;
| 'Mccammon, Kent G.'; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx;
| wdiab@cisco.com; cribeiro@mail.inet.com.br; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
| Subject: Objectives and [EFM] Banana networks
| 
| 
| 
| Geoff,
| 
| In the tread "Banana networks" you said: " I disagree here. I 
| believe that 
| Ethernet is "broadband in the protocol sense." The difference 
| is that it is 
| "flexibly broadband". Ethernet's main value as a trunking 
| mechanism is its 
| ability to make its total bandwidth available to all comers 
| based on their 
| instantaneous demand (up to the total available bandwidth, of 
| course)."
| 
| By that reasoning, 10Base5 would also be considered as 
| "broadband" and 
| should actually be named 10Broad5.  Also by this reasoning, 
| that all of the 
| existing Ethernet standards already support broadband 
| $ubscribtion services 
| and there is nothing distinctive about 802.3ah in meeting the 
| objectives 
| that would fit the criteria of "Distinct Identity" in that 
| there already 
| are several 802.3 standards that meet the first objective.
| 
| Of course, in the actual wording of the initial objective, "Support 
| $ubscriber Access Network Topologies", the word "network" is 
| used, not the 
| word "services".   This limits the definitions to the 
| physical facilities 
| and how they would be used.
| 
| I refer you to 
| http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ita/b12.htm 
| , a glossary on a vendor's web site, under the term 
| "broadband" there are 
| four definitions:
| "Describes facilities or services that operate at the DS3 
| rate and above. 
| For example, a Broadband DCS makes cross-connections at the 
| DS3, STS-1, and 
| STS-Nc levels. Similarly, Broadband ISDN provides about 150 Mb/s per 
| channel of usable bandwidth.", under one heading of "broadband", and
|   with another heading of "broadband":
| "1. Transmission system that multiplexes multiple independent 
| signals onto 
| one cable."
| "2. Telecommunications terminology: Any channel having a 
| bandwidth greater 
| than a voice-grade channel (4 kHz)."  (This is actually 
| incorrect, since a 
| voice channel is referred to as "narrowband" and a T1 to DS3 
| is referred to 
| as "wideband".)
| "3. LAN terminology: A coaxial cable on which analog 
| signaling is used. An 
| RF system with a constant data rate at or above 1.5 Mbps. Also called 
| wideband. Contrast with baseband." (Other glossaries make the 
| distinction 
| that broadband signalling consists of multiple RF frequencies.)
| 
| Under the term "baseband" is:
| "Characteristic of a network technology where only one 
| carrier frequency is 
| used. Ethernet is an example of a baseband network. Also 
| called narrowband. 
| Contrast with broadband."
| 
| Using these definitions, Ethernet, including 802.3ah qualifies as 
| "broadband" relative to the bandwidth, but does not qualify 
| as "broadband" 
| in any other sense.
| 
| Since 802.3ah does not provide for multiple independent signals, 
| "channels", the physical facilities can not be "unbundled".  
| This means 
| that 802.3ah will only support one $ubscription service 
| provider, the owner 
| of the physical facilites, what ever diversity of services they may 
| offer.  The ability for customers to link to different or 
| multiple service 
| providers over the same facility is not supported.  As such, 
| 802.3ah is 
| specific to only the incumbent providers, or one specific 
| provider, not the 
| industry as a whole.   Any newly funded facility that has the 
| political 
| will of supporting multiple service providers with equal access and 
| competition would NOT deploy EFM technology.  In this, I 
| would question 
| whether it meets the criteria of  "numerous users" in that is 
| only meets 
| the requirements of a limited number of users. (Remember that 
| the "user" 
| here is a service provider not the customers of that service 
| provider.)
| 
| Thank you,
| Roy Bynum
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
|