Cable modem spec.
Hi, I am doing a little research on how the cable modem thechnologie exactly work. I did find a couple of specifications ( like on cablemodem.com ), but I did'nt find those quite explicative. Could anyone give me some website / any way to get some infos ? Thanks Michael
Re: ipngwg, please stop the insanity
Richard, The ipng mailing list is working. It is used by the working group to develop the IPv6 protocol, but it is not used to debate the need for IPv6. To me the IETF list is an appropriate place for that debate. Bob At 12:30 PM 11/29/2001, Zoch, Richard (TIFS) wrote: >Is [EMAIL PROTECTED] broken? > >Is there no longer an "appropriate e-mail venue" for ipngwg?
Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > maybe the bussiness model of shared bandwidth is the flaw in > this equation. It seems like some rate limiting SLA scheme is > the way to go -- a lot more energy conserving than whining about > evils of NAT for stealing bandwidth. The problem is with the flatrates. Flatrates are much more cheaper than the bandwith you could use up with your connection. So the business modell only works as long as they can base their calculation on a one-average-user-per-connection concept. If they'd just bill by traffic, there would be no reason not to allow sharing your connection. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0
Re: Cable modem spec.
hi, Cablemodem means you would like info on DOCSIS (Data Over Cable Systems Interface Specs) right!! Well i guess DOCSIS 1.1 is currrent. Following are the MIBs for DOCSIS: 2669 - DOCSIS Mib 2670 - DOCSIS Mib Also i guess you can find more info on "terayon systems" website. rgds, chintan --- None <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, I am doing a little research on how the cable > modem thechnologie exactly work. I did find a couple > of specifications ( like on cablemodem.com ), but I > did'nt find those quite explicative. Could anyone > give me some website / any way to get some infos ? > Thanks > > Michael > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Cable modem spec(s) sites - lookie here
>hi, > >Cablemodem means you would like info on DOCSIS (Data >Over Cable Systems Interface Specs) right!! Well i >guess DOCSIS 1.1 is currrent. Following are the MIBs >for DOCSIS: > Hi Probably full specs in PDF (about 800 pages in pieces by ISO layer) at: http://www.cablelabs.org but you have to poke around. Some detailed stuff is at: http://www.scte.org/standards/standardsavailable.html and less detailed stuff is at: http://www.cablelabs.com/about_cl/publications.html If you think how this interacts with the RFC's and ANSI, IEC, CCITT, SCTE, etc it would be unlikely a pickup truck would hold all the 'specs' on paper, so expect to piece together what you need. If you want more help I can try to help (no promises). good luck Dan K
Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
> From: "David R. Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > More realistically, some might consider IPv4 address allocation > policies as discouraging the growth of the Internet (I am not among > them) > ... ** > Most, if not all, of the same people who are refused IPv4 address ** > allocations will (or should if we expect not to re-create the swamp) be ** > refused allocations of IPv6 addresses. Holy smoke! That's really major. This is the first I've heard of this (although it makes technical sense to try and avoid unaggregable allocations). I hadn't realized the registries were trying to guard against routing table bloat as well as address space exhaustion. I'm curious, when did this start, and how was it decided? Wow. Noel
Re: Cable modem spec(s) sites - lookie here
Hello, The DOCSIS 1.0/1.1 specs are broken out into several categories. Major categories of interest would be: RFI: Radio Frequency Interface - Details the PHY/MAC layer of DOCSIS focusing on CM to CMTS protocol interop. OSSI: Operation Support System Interface Spec - Details SNMP protocol interopability and MIB specific issues. BPI/BPI+: Baseline Privacy Spec - Details CM to CMTS encryption and BPI+ includes certificate based authentication. There are additional specification categories such as: CMCI (Cable modem to CPE Interface Spec), NSI (CMTS Network side interface spec), TR - Telco Return spec, etc.. Cablelabs also maintains ATP's (Acceptance Test Plans) which detail the sets of tests performed to verify DOCSIS 1.0/1.1 interoperability. these will be of interest to vendor wishing to submit a device (CM or CMTS) to a Cablelabs test wave for certification or qualification. Also maintained is a PICS/proforma conformance check list. All DOCSIS specifications (which can be found at: http://www.cablemodem.com/specifications.html) begin with an 'SP' in the document identifier. The specification naming convention is: SP---.pdf So, SP-RFI-I06-010829.pdf is the DOCSIS 1.0 Radio Frequency Interface Specification, interim release 06 dated 2001-08-29. Many of the DOCSIS 1.1 specs will have a '1.1' appended to the category identifier. The above specs are all for North American cablesystems, Cablelabs also has a 'EURO-DOCSIS' initiative as well and information on this can be found at: http://www.tcomlabs.com Cablelabs also has a PacketCable initiative which is an attempt to develop interface specs for 'real-time' delivery of content over 2-way HFC. See: http://www.packetcable.com/ A DOCSIS interim specification is developed around Cableslabs ECR's (Engineering Change Requests) which become (after approval) ECN's (Engineering Change Notifications). At the end of most spec's you will find a list of ECN's which were added to the spec from the previous release. To get access to ECN's/ECR's I believe you have to be a Cablelabs member. Under IETF there is the IPCDN working group: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipcdn-charter.html With the following RFC's of interest: RFC 2669 - Cable Device MIB RFC 2670 - RF MIB RFC 3083 - BPI MIB Under the ITU-T: ITU-T J.83: Details transmission signalling, MPEG transport, FEC, etc.. for digital television signals. J.83 Annex A/B are contained within. Hope this helps, Regards, -Ed. On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Dan Kolis wrote: > >hi, > > > >Cablemodem means you would like info on DOCSIS (Data > >Over Cable Systems Interface Specs) right!! Well i > >guess DOCSIS 1.1 is currrent. Following are the MIBs > >for DOCSIS: > > > > Hi > Probably full specs in PDF (about 800 pages in pieces by ISO layer) at: > > http://www.cablelabs.org > but you have to poke around. Some detailed stuff is at: > > http://www.scte.org/standards/standardsavailable.html > > > and less detailed stuff is at: > > http://www.cablelabs.com/about_cl/publications.html > > > If you think how this interacts with the RFC's and ANSI, IEC, CCITT, SCTE, > etc it would be unlikely a pickup truck would hold all the 'specs' on paper, > so expect to piece together what you need. If you want more help I can try > to help (no promises). > > good luck > Dan K >
RE: Why IPv6 is a must?
Noel Chiappa wrote: > I hadn't realized the registries > were trying to guard against routing table bloat as well as > address space > exhaustion. I'm curious, when did this start, and how was it decided? Miss a few meetings and all kinds of things start happening :)
Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
Noel, At 02:36 PM 11/30/2001 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: >>** > Most, if not all, of the same people who are refused IPv4 address >>** > allocations will (or should if we expect not to re-create the swamp) be >>** > refused allocations of IPv6 addresses. >Holy smoke! That's really major. Huh? This really shouldn't (at this late date) be a surprise to anyone. RIRs allocate TLAs (or sub-TLAs) to "TLA Registries". TLAs are the only prefixes that are supposed to be in the "default free zone" routing tables. Ergo... >I hadn't realized the registries >were trying to guard against routing table bloat as well as address space >exhaustion. I'm curious, when did this start, and how was it decided? Ever since the RIRs existed? See goal number 2 of section 1 of ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2050.txt or section 2.2.2 of http://www.arin.net/regserv/ipv6/IPv6.txt. As to how it was decided, my guess would be "by default". Rgds, -drc
Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
> RIRs allocate TLAs (or sub-TLAs) to "TLA Registries". there are no longer such things as TLAs randy
Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
At 12:53 PM 11/29/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: >the only benefit that IPv4 has over IPv6 (relative to routing table >size) is that IPv4 discourages growth of the Internet. "Only"? Please. An obvious benefits of v4 over v6 is that it is deployed. Another benefit is the operational experience gained over the years running v4 infrastructures. NAT, despite being the spawn of the devil, at the very least leverages both of these advantages. More realistically, some might consider IPv4 address allocation policies as discouraging the growth of the Internet (I am not among them), but I remain unconvinced IPv6 address allocation policies will be significantly different in the aspects that cause people to be discouraged. Most, if not all, of the same people who are refused IPv4 address allocations will (or should if we expect not to re-create the swamp) be refused allocations of IPv6 addresses. Rgds, -drc
