Re: Re: Re: By the way MCL...
|Originally posted by Baraxe
Yeah, that's it. You stuned me with the Paul Allen reference becasue he is a NETWORK GOD! No, really I wasn't trying to be an like you. I won't even profess to know how every HFC network is designed because the ones I support terminate the cable very close to the homes. They are Ethernet or ATM from the street back to the headend. Apparently you know everything, and Paul Allen gives you the credibility. You obviously are referencing some SPECIFIC cable termination system doing IMA or actually running on cable back to the headend. I don't know anything about any system that actually runs cable back to the headend. So are you going to educate me on how ALL HFC systems work in your world? Who do you work for Microsoft? They think there is only one software vendor/OS/browser in the world too. You also indicate your level of intelligence by saying your credentials beat mine when you know nothing about me. Oh, but I forgot, you are the HFC/Internet/Computer/Network/SoftwareEngineer who knows every cable providers network and every configuration and every piece of hardware on the planet. At least I've been in the business long enough and I am smart enough to know I don't know everything.
Look. I don't know where you get off, but an HFC network has C in it. That's what an HFC network is: Hybrid. Fiber. COAX. Don't come in here making big noise about non-coax HFC networks. There ain't no such beast. Capisce?
I've "worked with large ISPs" in the past, too. I don't care what's on the other side of the headend. Cable modem deployments in America, by the major players (AT&T, Ameritech, Comcast, Roadrunner, et alia) use RG-58,59, or 6 for the last mile. Coax from the customer premises to the headend, which is a CMTS using QPSK or QAM modulation for the data channel. And that particular configuration has a max throughput of roughly 35-45Mbps.
If someone mentions "cable modems", in a forum predominantly occupied by American consumers, and they don't provide any further context, that's a significant clue that the person making the reference expects the context to be supplied by the reader. And, that context, being supplied by an average American, is going to be the cable modem service delivered to 99% of American homes that have cable modem service, and it's going to look exactly like I've just described above.
So you've got some experience with *special-purpose, limited deployment* networks? Not only am I unimpressed, I'm thoroughly so, as you seem to think that "ATM" means "no coax" (at which point I'd suggest you go study a bit more).
You don't know me from Adam (pun intended), and your first communication with me is an attack on my knowledge and expertise. That's unwise. And, as many people can attest, publically embarassing for the attacker. When I don't know something, I readily admit it. You, on the other hand, seem to want to extend your knowledge of non-coax last-mile deployments to a network architecture that in general requires it, and in the context of this particular discussion, specifically demands it -- because the topic at hand was the throughput on the average cable modem system.
I stated that your average cable modem system is capable of delivering 35-45Mbps to the door, today. I then stated that you'd not see it, because the average cable modem system is underbuilt and oversold, intentionally. I then further stated that the reason the throughput is 35-45Mbps today is due to the modulation scheme in use at the headend. I'll readily admit that RG58,59,and/or 6 can handle higher throughput. I'll also point out that for a run of any significant length, you'd probably not want to use it anyway, due to signal attentuation and leakage at the various junctions. It'd fail utterly in an MDU at those speeds (and this you'd know if you were at all familiar with the vagaries of TCP/IP, and what a borderline signal on the wire can force the protocol stack to do).
And yet you continue to bluster on about topics that have nothing to do with anything I've stated: you've ranted and raved about ATM (as though ATM is impossible over coax). You've gone on and on about something you think exists: An HFC network without C in it. You've repeatedly insulted my intelligence.
What are you expecting, thanks?
The problem with technical topics is this: In most everyday situations, when someone's being a complete and utter idiot, it's easy for everyone to spot. When the subject at hand is a relatively obscure and/or arcane technical topic, it's more difficult for the layperson to spot.
Rather than keep my mirth to myself, I thought I'd act as a klaxon for everyone else, so we can all have a laugh at your expense. Because you have indeed removed all doubt by opening your mouth.
Now, crawl back into your little hole, and consider holding your tongue about what someone does and does not know next time. Particularly when it's you who is on the attack.
I won't bother handing you your arse. I left it in the corner over there. Fetch.
And, as to my credentials, since you want to push the matter: BS, MA, and abd, experimental cognitive psychology. Invited researcher, German Institute for Artificial Intelligence. 15 years proefssional systems and network administration and design. Vice President, SAGE Certification. Advisor, LPI certification. Author, SAGE Certification. Author, USENIX book: "Documentation for Systems Administrators". Former clients include Sony, the National Opinion Reseach Center, WebTV, the US's largest nuclear power concern, my role as CTO of a $100mil consulting firm. REPEAT invited technical expert, TechTV. And about 20 peer-reviewed scientific articles and book chapters.
Oh, and my current position, overseeing the computing and network infrastructure for one of the world's largest and most ambitious scientific undertakings.
You were saying?