Hi
I agree on Sebastian’s points on DOCSIS being able to offer this 100/100 
service, as well as what the most recent version of what DOCSIS can do..

In terms of DOCSIS 3.1 it supports “High Split” upstream where signals operate 
up to 204MHz (from current limits of 42MHz, 65MHz or 85MHz). This is equivalent 
to 1.35Gbps in the US direction. In terms of DS direction, the copper coax is 
capable of up to 6GHz operation, with Full Duplex DOCSIS (FDX) and Extended 
Spectrum DOCSIS (ESD) already positioned for 1.8GHz and 3GHz.

For 204MHz US operation, there are some plant modifications required (where 
some amps and diplexers need to be upgraded to the higher frequencies). D3.1 
chipsets introduced in 2015 (and still used) have the hardware capability to 
utilise this extra upstream spectrum (2x 192MHz DS OFDM & 2x 96MHz US OFDMA 
along with legacy SC-QAM support (24/32 DS & 8 US). However, the modems 
deployed in production are designed for different spectrum plans depending on 
operator cable plant – meaning a modem might only support 65MHz or 85MHz US – 
although some were designed to allow software modify the frontend, physically 
switching between 85MHz US to 204MHz, so as to enjoy the extra capacity once 
the plant upgrade was completed (upgraded on a per “service group” basis).

DOCSIS3.1 (current deployed tech) is well positioned to offer 100/100 symmetric 
services with existing HW on both ends of the coax. DOCSIS 4.0 (active 
developments) will go well beyond that level…

DOCSIS3.1 capacity of the network is up to 2Gbps US and 10Gbps DS
DOCSIS4.0 FDD/ESD capacity is up to 5Gbps US & 10Gbps DS
While beyond FDD/ESD the copper carrying capacity is up to 10Gbps US and 25Gbps 
DS.


Ian Wheelock

From: Bloat <bloat-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Sebastian 
Moeller <moell...@gmx.de>
Date: Monday 5 July 2021 at 22:21
To: Dave Täht <dave.t...@gmail.com>
Cc: cerowrt-devel <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat 
<bl...@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] the future is in high speed symmetrical 
internet speeds!!!!

Hi Dave, Well, less asymmetric down/up ratios are certainly worth fighting for 
(for one NTP should work better). And, as I might add, something that is 
orthogonal to better router software ;) a fast s
External (moell...@gmx.de<mailto:moell...@gmx.de>)
  Report This 
Email<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/report?id=Y29tbXNjb3BlL2lhbi53aGVlbG9ja0Bjb21tc2NvcGUuY29tL2U4NGJjYjFmNDVkYzY0ZDRiMzUxMjJmNGQyZTBhMGJlLzE2MjU1MjAwOTAuOTU=#key=03a39f6d8b342e909c7d2e0aca9ab601>
  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/>  Protection by 
INKY<https://www.inky.com>


Hi Dave,



Well, less asymmetric down/up ratios are certainly worth fighting for (for one 
NTP should work better). And, as I might add, something that is orthogonal to 
better router software ;) a fast symmetric link with a craptastic router is 
still roughly as much fun as a dial-up connection with the best router software 
we can wish for... ;)

Regarding that EFF article, while I think that light over fiber is "the obvious 
way forward", I fear that the strategy of asking for 100/100 under the 
assumption, it can only be reliably achieved by fiber roll out, ignores the 
full duplex technologies that are either ready for deployment (full duplex 
g.fast) or a much cheaper plant upgrade away than rolling our new fiber (full 
duplex docsis comes to mind, which might require changes to the physical plant 
layout with nested/hierarchical amplifiers*). I note that local docsis ISPs in 
Germany are aiming for 100 Mbps upload in the next 12-24 months (simply by 
switching more upload spectrum to docsis 3.1 coding schemes). In short 100/100 
might not be the "only with fiber" speed grade the authors seem to think, and 
if the goal is full fiber than it seems best to actually require full fiber.



Best Regards

        Sebastian





*) Or not might be possible to run full duplex over some level of hierarchical 
amplifiers...





> On Jul 5, 2021, at 20:46, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> or at least, in more politicking, for fiber.

>

> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1op2p3QHW9dBXc6FToJpSSHJVJ2ZeNLnznAfItKhgE0dEFSvu00sPOc9vrlKBd1HeF_ONtZFQzsk1clpw9UrhmYCGFNC_FiNO0UH9-93snFlf42DxvkBZKrws8xQCyDxE0UNssak4EgQrp6sfE-bbovjveL5pDIUF0I1QJ-ntnPgQ5ovwZDcZDFHwlZTBI3bBHb5qDlJQtxzo8_XEmkjdynTJ8UE9u70LzBUTe3_xiA6yUIInrr5IPjwTJBXewegkCvmAAxQHCQ1OGe8pxs80GUCkGIHQy1YEmcOGUEjqtIFklI7ADKXqCmO2tWg0um4SwgNqXhLMx4iSz79culZJLw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2021%2F07%2Ffuture-symmetrical-high-speed-internet-speeds

>

> I emailed the authors and mentioned that better routers might be a

> cheaper start...

>

> --

> Latest Podcast:

> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6791014284936785920/

>

> Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC

> _______________________________________________

> Cerowrt-devel mailing list

> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net

> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1LuIPkY4Mo8m8E67qyG7T27tvv6t73j1OzI7OGDsoxgvwDw9W9Dnie8yypmq5D4xd6-LSp7y-txjpZfzZQQDX8prvx2EM7H9qP79_2Fh-bP3SiSCU-o5W9VYnOZCuhk2jxTgSNDJjE2xAkYxfdYnTH7gMFYGuYWQdkEpROgNjEdhglJNxyBTISoI9Y62gZRPB6y0gVITiL4WVtApXBF3YzCtElfJwLpeAeJEomkrfV_bZCBXfLEe3NtMXhEBtQ17L83x8oBCU3HmeyHXzLcIuxsCR6xqIVks30zEi4GG87dI4j0EEoOSki9Y9V0imqg4_n9MpFNLYyi9gaQN7y1q47A/https%3A%2F%2Flists.bufferbloat.net%2Flistinfo%2Fcerowrt-devel



_______________________________________________

Bloat mailing list

bl...@lists.bufferbloat.net

https://secure-web.cisco.com/1veJAxejUZ-fba8OkF-nb78I8ozO7XJGM7Jdtxa1pAARdwtHe8d9Y7WAIgLjkwc1CXAaOp7Ebsf12u4KwoAJOmG2mkIlyhlbe-Ls_KUImC32W6bEkhOZMdCb3druQIZ-HZnAjOv8dmPilVZIqXw7YfUAZxOz56Bl08T1ukfDlRsTRTgqVBMeNw5vxFRx3Y8I7Zv7K0sS3JAmNR-Dzw4SGbGq1ahgL_Eq2d4GDvV9zOy957udZXy7WeHdPAQG5WYWM9Gj56x6D_W68jftGK9RZA_oK8B2Vwjmwx10Xwh1dWEc1s92r2Sc2SiAH_ZtYpXFmuubhUNnToKs3XSSTXosf6A/https%3A%2F%2Flists.bufferbloat.net%2Flistinfo%2Fbloat
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Reply via email to