"What was "at issue with ethernet" is that you quote Tom Nolle's criticism of various efforts to implement ethernet. Where does that place you?"
I agreed with one of Nolle's observations. Likewise, there are philosophical orientations and biases that Nolle projects that I don't agree with. You shouldn't attempt to cast me that way.
---------
"EPON is far away and the E doesn't need the PON now."
It will. Lest Ethernet remains at 2 or 7 or 10 M/bs over twisted pair indefinitely, or is delivered over a bundle kludge of 12 or 24 twisted pairs (which CLECs and DLECs would have a hell of time securing from the ILEC in a contiguous count), at a higher speed.
---
"Here's the difference: "But simple, best-effort standards have a long history of beating more complex full-feature protocols". Do you want to claim that FSAN is "best efforts"? This is hardly "best efforts."
Who wants FSAN? If you recall, I stated that the EPON standards were borrowing from some of the principles of ATM PON, or APON, at the physical layer, which is a part of the FSAN design specifications. I didn't say that I favored FSAN, or anything else for that matter.
You see, it's my place to understand them all (okay, as many as I can). Whereas, it's your place to invest or short in the ones you think will win or lose.
There, as it turns out, is the difference.
----------
"In fact, it represents a reaction of supply looking for a demand. In this case standards efforts are an attempt to prop up that which won't stand on its own."
So, you don't think there is a real, or emerging, demand? Standards are an attempt to preserve some level of sanity in an otherwise totally looney and chaotic universe. Try managing a field force who must maintain a platform whose principles are scrawled on the backs of napkins or determined through Kentucky Windage.
------------
"That's where it places you."
I tell you that the next gen'ers are having a hard time, and you reply by telling me that that's where it places me? You might understand what you mean by that, but I don't, except that it appears to represent an unflattering remark directed at me.
------------
"Actelis isn't the only implementation of SDM. In fact, there are quite a few out there. There are mixed variants too...It is my contention that SDM ethernet on ECI will be the evolutionary path by which scale convergence will take place. I believe GigE will command the MAN and that integration will be cheapest, easiest, on SDM E ECI. The ECI is in place and under financial power and incentive. That's a fertile field that doesn't exist anywhere else."
Well, at least we share some common ground wrt GbE. But the other stuff? You imply, above, that the Actelis and ECI SDMs are in some way related, as variants? You do understand, of course, that the SDM approach that Actelis speaks about [spatial division multiplexing] and the SDM approach that ECI speaks about [its miniature SDH multiplexer, using time division multiplexing principles], are two different and unrelated animals, entirely. Don't you?
Also, you are aware that the ECI SDM device can fill the role of an optical network unit (ONU) on an FSAN PON before dropping off dsl lines to the residence, aren't you?
Actelis' SDM approach, on the other hand, is not only a different "variant," as you say, of SDM from that of ECI's SDM, but it has no resemblance to the ECI model in principle, at all. The only things that the two SDMs from ECI and Actelis share, aside from you and the last mile, apparently, are the three letters that make up their name. And the fact that they happen to have the same TLA is a matter of pure coincidence, and nothing else.
The ECI box is a Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (read: ITU equivalent of SONET) miniature add-drop multiplexer: ecitele.com
Whereas, the Spatial Division Multiplexing "variant" that Actelis is promoting is, IMO, a form of inverse multiplexer for twisted pairs, with proprietary error correction algorithms:
actelis.com
FAC |
