Re: [RE] What's wrong using FireWire as the home backbone?
Hugh,
I'm afraid that your interpretation, when reading between
the lines, is not the same as intended. Specific comments
follow.
>> So far there has been some discussion on the subject of "what's wrong
>> with Ethernet" for the home network and, as far as I can see it, the
>> main response seems to be "it's not FireWire."
1) The limitations of Ethernet have been (I believe) reasonably well
stated, in terms of no timer synchronization, admission control,
and fixed-rate deliveries.
2) Those experience with consumer devices and real time transfers
tend to come from the 1394/Firewire domain, since that group
has worked on the problem for some years.
I see no problem with excepting others' ideas, as the NIH
alternative is very costly in terms of time and results.
3) The main argument for 1394-in-the-home is that Ethernet does
not support synchronous services. I personally prefer to solve
that problem, on Ethernet, rather than encourage two solutions
in the home, confusing the customer, and limiting the volume.
4) I have seen no one say that 802.3 is defficient because
"it's not FireWire". Can you point out that quote?
>> So, could someone with expertise in this field summarize what
>> the deficiencies are with IEEE 1394 that require it to be
>> replaced with an enhanced IEEE 802.3?
To me, splitting the marketplace and excluding 802.3 from rapid
expansion of the CE marketplace are the main disadvantages of
wiring the home with 1394.
>> It strikes me that the problem of bridging:
>>
>> <-- IEEE 1394 -->...<-- IEEE 802.3 -->...<-- IEEE 1394 -->
>>
>> would be best served by:
>>
>> <-- IEEE 1394 -->...<-- IEEE 1394 -->...<-- IEEE 1394 -->
That's an approach, and it has its advocates. Particularly among
those that believe 802.3 is incapable of solving the synchronous
transfer problems. That's the primary reason that the 1394 bridge
standard was developed: for 1394 networks within the home.
But, if 1394 were to be the household connection of choice,
then one would have to deal with:
within the room | within the residence | within the room
..<-- IEEE 1394 -->..
<-- IEEE 802.3 -->.. ..<-- IEEE 802.3 -->
While that is a viable solution, and work has been done on
sending IP over 1394, as well as 1394 over CAT-5, I'm surprized
to see an 802.3 member apparently advocate such a position.
I also doubt the commerical viability of replacing home Ethernet
networks with home 1394 networks, or placing the two networks
in parallel.
Wouldn't you prefer to be on top? Given the choice, I would(:>).
Cheers,
DVJ
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Hugh Barrass
>> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:59 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [RE] What's wrong with FireWire?
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> So far there has been some discussion on the subject of "what's wrong
>> with Ethernet" for the home network and, as far as I can see it, the
>> main response seems to be "it's not FireWire." So, could someone with
>> expertise in this field summarize what the deficiencies are with IEEE
>> 1394 that require it to be replaced with an enhanced IEEE 802.3?
>>
>> It strikes me that the problem of bridging:
>>
>> <-- IEEE 1394 -->...<-- IEEE 802.3 -->...<-- IEEE 1394 -->
>>
>> would be best served by:
>>
>> <-- IEEE 1394 -->...<-- IEEE 1394 -->...<-- IEEE 1394 -->
>>
>> Hugh.
>>