1. SCTE Presentation John J. Downey Cisco Systems – BNE
DOCSIS 3.0 Overview
SCTE Presentation
John J. Downey
Cisco Systems – BNE

2. Agenda Motivation - Why DOCSIS 3.0? DOCSIS 3.0 Features Overview
DOCSIS 3.0 and M-CMTS Comparisons
Bandwidth Management
Migration Strategy
DOCSIS 3.0 Status
Potential Issues
Summary
Case Studies/ Architecture Ideas

3. Motivation - Why DOCSIS 3.0?

4. Growing Services Consuming HFC Spectrum
More HD Video Services
Growth plans to 100+ HD channels
More SD Video Content
Expansion to nx100 SD chs to compete w/ satellite
Personalized Video Services
Migration from Broadcast to Unicast services
VoD, Startover, MyPrimetime, etc
Broadband Internet Services Growth
Migration from Web to Web2.0, Video Streaming and P2PTV Applications
Increased per home BW consumption
Expansion of the peak hour to whole evening
Competitive pressure!

5. Spectral Solutions Being Investigated & Deployed
Use every channel available
SDV
Narrowcast QAM injection
Node splits
Analog reclamation
1 GHz upgrade
Traffic “grooming”
MPEG-4

6. Overall Industry Objectives
DOCSIS 3.0
M-CMTS
Goal:
More aggregate speed
More per-CM speed
Enable New Services
Components:
Channel Bonding
IPv6
Multicast
AES
Goal:
Increase Scalability
Reduce Cost
Components:
Low Cost E-QAM
CMTS Core Processing
Better stat muxing with bigger “pipe”
Offer >37 Mbps for single CM

7. DOCSIS 3.0 Features Overview

8. DOCSIS 3.0 Features MAC Layer Network Management Network Layer
Downstream Channel Bonding
Upstream Channel Bonding
Network Layer
IPv6 support
IP Multicast (IGMPv3/MLDv2, SSM, QoS)
Security
Certificate Revocation Management
Runtime SW / Config validation
Enhanced Traffic Encryption (AES)
Certificate Convergence
Early Authentication & Encryption
TFTP Proxy
Network Management
Diagnostic Log (Flaplist)
Extension of Internet Protocol Data Records (IPDR) usage
Capacity management
Enhanced signal quality monitoring
Physical Layer
Switch-able 5-42 MHz, 5-65 MHz, or 5-85 MHz US band
S-CDMA active code selection with new Logical channel
Commercial Services
T1/E1 Circuit Emulation support

9. Channel Bonding
In a nutshell, channel bonding means data is transmitted to or from CMs using multiple individual RF channels instead of just one channel
Channels aren't physically bonded into a gigantic digitally modulated signal; bonding is logical
With DOCSIS 3.0, data is transmitted to modems using multiple channels
With DOCSIS 1.x & 2.0, data is transmitted to modems using one channel

10. DOCSIS 3.0 Registration Diagram
WCM acquires QAM/FEC lock of DOCSIS DS channel
SYNC, UCD, MAP messages
WCM performs usual US channel selection, but does not start initial ranging
MDD message
WCM performs bonded service group selection, and indicates via initial ranging
B-INIT-RNG-REQ message
WCM transitions to ranging station maintenance as usual
Usual DOCSIS initial ranging sequence
DHCP DISCOVER packet
DHCP OFFER packet
DHCP REQUEST packet
DHCP RESPONSE packet
TOD Request/Response messages
TFTP Request/Response messages
WCM provides Rx-Chan(s)-Prof
REG-REQ message
REG-RSP message
WCM receives Rx-Chan(s)-Config
WCM confirms all Rx Channels
REG-ACK message
Usual BPI init. If configured

11. DOCSIS 3.0 - DS Channel Bonding

12. Downstream Bonding - Features
Packet bonding of a minimum of 4 channels
Delivers in excess of 150 Mbps
Non-disruptive technology
Seamless migration from DOCSIS 1.x/2.0
M-CMTS and high density I-CMTS cards
EQAMs
New hardware required for scalability and cost reduction
New CM silicon required

13. Downstream Bonding Service Drivers
Competition against FTTH
Deliver 100 Mbps
High BW residential data
IP Video over DOCSIS(VDOC)
High definition Video to multiple devices
PCs, hybrid STBs, portable devices
High BW Internet streaming
Video conferencing
TelePresence
Commercial service
High BW data services
Bonded T1
High BW Ethernet/L2VPN service

14. Reasons to Develop DRFI Beyond D2.0 RFI
Required to specify a multi-channel environment
DOCSIS 2.0 and lower was only single carrier
Cleaned up inaccuracies in 2.0 and lower
Basic idea was no need for external combiner, laser loading concerns and cost reduction?
Criteria was 60 dB CNR assuming a worse case lineup
Applies only to 3.0 CMTS or any multi-carrier DS connector (e-qam)

15. Single Carrier DRFI 1 Annex A & B Variable Depth Interleaver
HRC, IRC, STD
64 & 256 QAM
Inband Spurious, Distortion and Noise MER
Unequalized MER >35dB, Equalized MER >43dB
Inband Spurious and Noise ≤-48dBc
Spurious and noise within ±50 kHz of the carrier is excluded.
Phase Noise (single carrier)
1 kHz - 10 kHz: -33dBc double sided noise power
10 kHz - 50 kHz: -51dBc double sided noise power
50 kHz - 3 MHz: -51dBc double sided noise power
Output Return Loss
>14 dB within an active output channel from 88 MHz to 750 MHz
>13 dB within an active output channel from 750 MHz to 870 MHz
>12 dB in every inactive channel from 54 MHz to 870 MHz
>10 dB in every inactive channel from 870 MHz to 1002 MHz
Power per channel +/- 2dB
Diagnostic Carrier Suppression ≥50dB
dBmV
N=1 : 60 1
Center Frequency
MUST 91 <-> 867 MHz
MAY 57 <-> 999 MHz
Channel BW
6 MHz & 8 MHz
MUST be F Connector.
DRFI compliance testing conducted at room temp

16. Power Output for Multiple Carriers per RF SpigotN
dBmV 1 60 2 56 3 54 4 52 8 49 16 45 32 42
N=n : 60-ceil[3.6*log2(n)] dBmV
dBmV
N=1 : 60
N=2 : 56
N=3 : 54
N=4 : 52 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4

17. DOCSIS 3.0 - US Channel Bonding

18. Upstream Bonding - Features
Packet Striping of a minimum of 4 channels
Delivers in excess of 50 Mbps
AES and scalability require hardware upgrade
New CM silicon required
Phased and seamless technology migration

19. Upstream Channel Bonding
Upstream bonding
Single flow can consume all BW on multiple USs
Continuous Concatenation & Fragmentation (CCF)
Improved form of concatenation and fragmentation that is needed for DOCSIS 3.0 operation
The CM has a buffer with a 1000 bytes to send. Its requests for 1000 on US1,
the CM receives grants on US1, US2 and US3. The size of the grant may depend
on the load on that channel
The CM does not send packets since the grant might not align with packet
Boundaries
Instead the CM sends “segments”
Each segment has a sequence number, and a pointer field so that individual packets
Can be extracted (the pointer field is similar to the one used on the MPEG pointer
In the DS

20. Upstream Bonding Service Drivers
Competition against FTTH
Deliver 20+ Mbps
High BW residential data
User generated content
Video and photo uploads
Proliferation of social sites
Video conferencing
TelePresence
Commercial service
High BW symmetrical data services
Bonded T1
High BW Ethernet/L2VPN service

21. D2.0 is Still not Used 27.2 Mbps total aggregate speed
Achieved 18 Mbps for single CM on US
Fragmentation and concatenation with a huge max burst
Linerate possible of ~ 27 Mbps
Make sure 1.0 CMs, which can’t fragment, have a max burst < 2000 B
There are other factors that can directly affect performance of your cable network such as the QoS Profile, noise, rate-limiting, node combining, over-utilization, etc. Most of these are discussed in detail in:
Knowing what throughput to expect is the first step in determining what subscribers' data speed and performance will be. Once it is determined what is theoretically possible, a network can then be designed and managed to meet the dynamically changing requirements of a cable system.
Reject(na) indicates a reject nack. This can occur when a 1.0 modem doesn’t respond correctly to the DOCSIS mode of the US port it is connected to.
Right now, load balancing is not supported with DOCSIS 2.0 settings because of load balance weights. Weights are related to the aggregate speed of the “pipe”. In a mixed (DOCSIS 1.x and 2.0) environment, the 1.x CMs could have a weight of and the 2.0 CMs could have a weight of 15 Mbps.

22. DOCSIS 1.1 Phy Change (PRE-EQ)
US EQ is supported on all cards for 1.0 & 1.1
8-tap blind equalizer
1.1 allows 'pre-eq' where EQ coefficients are sent during IM & SM allowing CM to pre-distort its signal
Supported on all linecards & IOS that support 1.1
Requires 1.1 capable CMs, but not .cm file
Configurable option
2.0 increases the EQ tap length from 8 to 24
Supported on U/H cards in ATDMA & mixed mode
Off by default
Summary (in ATDMA mode, in particular) of the changes for CSCsg75417 for Rogers/Canaldigital:
1) A scheduler bug fix which caused overlap map IE when pre-equ is enabled.  This is a scheduler bug fix and no impact in terms of throughput or performance.
2) When in ATDMA mode and when the US byte interleaving turned ON in the modulation profile, we now automatically override and disable the byte interleaving when the pre-eq is enabled.  When the pre-eq is turned off, the byte interleaving is enabled back per mod profile settings.   
This reason for this byte interleaver disable is that, when we enable pre-eq, TI wanted to re-route and bypass the internal byte interleaver processing engine.  Irrespective of whether byte interleaver is turned ON or not, the FIFO data gets passed thru this processing engine during a burst processing.  One or map errors can cause FIFO errors in this processing engine - which in turn propagates to other phy processing areas and errors.  By this re-route scheme, all burst processing is completely avoiding this byte interleaver processing engine to prevent any FIFO related errors.  So, for the MC520S/U, in atdma mode, we cannot have the upstream byte interleaving and pre-eq enabled at the same time.  This is a limitation which MC520H would not have. The above two changes have no impact on throughput performance.  However, due to our previous TI pad/quiet time Errata fix which existed from day 1, we have to expect some throughput performance degradation in relation to MC520H when pre-eq is enabled.
For the S/U card, when pre-eq is enabled, per ranging burst, we need 800 msecs of quiet time (padding of 400 msec before and another 400 msec after ranging burst).   When there are back-to-back ranging bursts, the spacing gap is only 400 msecs between the two (and not 800 msec).   This is part of the quiet time/pad errata which existed all along from day 1 of S/U card release and is not part of my recent fix CSCsg75417 for Rogers/Canaldigital.  What TI said is that with our recent fix, we could potentially reduce that quiet time length (but no specific info on by how much).  But, would again require extensive regression testing.

23. Upstream Adaptive Equalization Example
Upstream 6.4 MHz bandwidth 64-QAM signal
Before adaptive equalization:
Substantial in-channel tilt caused correctable FEC errors to increment at a rate of about 7000 errored codewords per second (232 bytes per codeword). The CMTS’s reported upstream MER (SNR) was 23 dB.
After adaptive equalization:
DOCSIS 2.0’s 24-tap adaptive equalization—actually pre-equalization in the modem—was able to compensate for nearly all of the in-channel tilt (with no change in digital channel power). The result: No correctable or uncorrectable FEC errors and the CMTS’s reported upstream MER (SNR) increased to ~36 dB.
This slide illustrates an example of upstream pre-equalization in action. To demonstrate the performance of DOCSIS 2.0’s 24-tap pre-equalization, a cable modem was set up to transmit a 6.4 MHz-wide 64-QAM signal at a center frequency of 48 MHz. This frequency forced the signal through the rolloff area of the cable modem’s internal low pass filter, causing substantial in-channel tilt. The upper photo shows the 64-QAM signal as received by the CMTS without adaptive pre-equalization, and the lower photo shows the same signal at the CMTS input after the modem’s adaptive pre-equalization was turned on.
Before adaptive equalization: The in-channel tilt caused correctable FEC errors to increment at a rate of about 7000 errored codewords per second (232 bytes per codeword). The CMTS’s reported upstream unequalized MER (“SNR”) was 23 dB.
After adaptive equalization: The modem’s 24-tap pre-equalizer was able to compensate for nearly all of the in-channel tilt (with no change in digital channel power). The result: No correctable or uncorrectable FEC errors and the CMTS’s reported upstream unequalized MER increased to ~36 dB.

24. DOCSIS 3.0 and M-CMTS Comparisons

25. DOCSIS 3.0 Migration: M-CMTS
Current CMTS
DOCSIS 2.0 US
HFC
DS Bonding and Existing DOCSIS 1.x/2.0 CMs
Edge QAMs

26. M-CMTS Network Topology

27. M-CMTS Key DOCSIS 3.0 enabling technology
DS scalability of DOCSIS 1.x/2.0
Easy migration to DOCSIS 3.0 DS channel bonding
Enables service convergence and QAM sharing (Video and Data)
Creates efficiency in CAPEX/service

28. Supports DS Bonding and Existing DOCSIS 1.x/2.0 CMs
DOCSIS 3.0: M-CMTS
CMTS Core
DOCSIS 3.0 Bonded US
HFC
Supports DS Bonding and Existing DOCSIS 1.x/2.0 CMs
Edge QAMs

29. Supports DS Bonding and Existing DOCSIS 1.x/2.0 CMs
DOCSIS 3.0: I-CMTS
High Density Linecards
I-CMTS
DOCSIS 3.0 Bonded US
HFC
DOCSIS 3.0 Bonded DS
Supports DS Bonding and Existing DOCSIS 1.x/2.0 CMs

30. Spectrum Example

31. Bandwidth Management

32. Bandwidth Management Solutions
SDV
Offer more HD and SD content using less total RF spectrum with the same STB
Only transmit the content being actively watched
Could make more QAMs available for DOCSIS and VOD if QAM sharing is implemented
Node splits
Physically reduce the homes passed per HFC node, thus reduce contention per home for Unicast services
Decombine more attractive
Triggers additional QAMs and CMTS Ports

33. Bandwidth Management Solutions (cont)
Traffic “Grooming”
MPEG-4
Broadcast to narrowcast QAM injection
Reduce broadcast domains to smaller DOCSIS & video service groups
Ultimately a complete Unicast lineup on a per node basis
Analog reclamation for more digital spectrum
More QAM channels for Digital Broadcast, VoD, SDV and DOCSIS
Use every channel available
Manage the channel lineup, fill in the gaps, mitigate noise to enable all spectrum
1GHz upgrade
Make new spectrum for new CPE above 860 MHz

34. 1GHz Bandwidth Enhancement & Segmentation
1 GHz Upgrade
1GHz Bandwidth Enhancement & Segmentation
Network Impact
<= 750 MHz of BW may not be enough
Node splitting & SDV alone do not solve HFC BW problem
1 GHz BW upgrade required
1GHz Network Benefits
Value added capacity
60 analog 6 MHz chs gained
Minimal cost per home passed cost to implement
Electronic-only drop-ins in most cases
1 GHz is a cost-effective tool to increase broadcast and narrowcast BW

35. Migration Strategy

36. DOCSIS 3.0 Migration Steps - Phased Approach for Improved Time-to-Market
Downstream Bonding
IPV6
Upstream Bonding
Multicast QoS
AES
IPDR

37. Initial Migration Goal
Deliver very high speed data service
Deliver 100+ Mbps DS
Deliver 50+ Mbps US
Reduction of node split cost
Multiple DSs per node
M-CMTS or I-CMTS load balancing
Multiple USs per node
Leverage existing ports and deploy 2.0 USs
BW flexibility & reduction of CMTS port cost
Break DS/US dependence i.e. independent scalability of US and DS
Reduce cost of DS ports by more than 1/10
Reduce CMTS port/subscriber cost by 30-50%

38. Migration Strategy Target CMTS upgrades in high priority markets
FiOS & U-Verse competitive markets
High growth & demographics
Markets with capacity issues
Your node 
Add more DS QAMs per service group and load balancing
Via I-CMTS and M-CMTS
Current 1x4 mac domain leaves US stranded
Increase capacity to existing 1.x/2.0 modem

39. Migration Strategy (cont)
Deliver targeted bonded DS chs to DOCSIS 3.0 CMs
Video and data convergence
Video and DOCSIS service group alignment
DSG & Tru2way will leverage DOCSIS DS BW
Share & leverage existing assets
UEQAMs for VoD, SDV and DOCSIS
UERM to enable QAM sharing

40. DOCSIS 3.0 Status

41. DOCSIS 3.0 Status CMTS can be submitted for Bronze, Silver, or Full
Cablelabs
Qualified 3 CMTS vendors for Bronze for CW56
CW 58 currently underway and will conclude with results in early May 2008
CMs are only allowed to go for "Full 3.0 Certification"
No 3.0 CMs have been certified by CableLabs
Only silicon that exists to build a FULL capable 3.0 CPE is the Texas Instruments PUMA5 chip
PUMA5 is chip used in most vendor CMs going through CableLabs CW-58 testing

42. DOCSIS 3.0 Status
Broadcom is working on a competing chip for 3.0 CPE but it is not available yet
DPC3000 in CW-58 certification for Full 3.0
Plan is to ship in volume by June 2008
Operators
Working on models to determine QAM requirements
Testing pre and DOCSIS 3.0 compliant DS Bonding
Testing IPV6 in labs
Developing management tools and provisioning

43. Three Reference Designs
Broadcom's ch/tuner
SA DPC ,
DPC2100 locks only 6 MHz channels
EPC2100 locks 8 MHz or 6 MHz channels
TI Puma3 based
Linksys WCM300 with 2 tuners, 6 & 50 MHz passband
TI Puma5 3.0 based
SA DPC3000 w/ 4-ch US & DS bonding, 60 MHz passband for annex B and 64 MHz for annex A
SA DPC3000 will register with all wideband versions of IOS dating back to Dali BC.  However, we primarily test on Rembrandt BC.
Rembrandt BC2 release allows the "other guys' 3.0 modems" to register on 10K.  But SA doesn't need it.

44. Potential Issues

45. Design Rules and Restrictions
SA 3 ch CM needs all 3 DS on e-qam for 111 Mbps
Can do annex B on control channel & 2 annex A chs to get ~95 Mbps, but requires MHz of BW
SA 4 ch CM has 96 MHz passband filter
Linksys CM has 2 tuners, 1 for control & 1 w/ 50 MHz band
Starts at lowest freq configured
D3.0 spec goes to 1050 MHz, but some equipment may not
SA DPC2505 speced to 930 MHz
Can e-qam put out 2 or 4 “haystacks” per port?
What if it is annex A at 8 MHz ch width?
DPC Upstream (Most Docsis Deployments)
EPC Upstream (Most EuroDocsis Deployments)
DPC Upstream (Japan Docsis Deployments)

46. DS Ports with Edge-QAM for DS Bonding
U0/C0
U1/C2 U2/C16
1x3
DS1
U0/C4 U1/C6
U2/C17
DS4
U1/C2
U2/C4
U3/C6
U4/C8
U5/C10
U6/C12
U7/C14
1x8
MC5x20
DS2
U0/C8 U1/C10
U2/C18
DS3
U0/C12 U1/C14
U2/C19
DS 4 = 609 MHz
DSs 0-3 = 603 MHz
Edge1 = 615 MHz
Edge2 = 621 MHz
Edge-QAM
Potential Isolation Path
DS Combiner
DS Splitter
DS Tx
This figure depicts a possible DS isolation issue that can occur when DS frequency is narrowcast and another DS frequency is introduced across multiple nodes. Isolation amplifiers can be used to prevent the signal from backfeeding when architectures like this are implemented.
Another issue is the use of external QAM boxes that already allocate multiple DS freqs per connector. What do you do if the connector can freq stack 4 DS channels, but you only need 2?
Requires:
4 DS freqs
3 US freqs in each node
How to deal with freq stacked DSs if not using them all?

47. Harmonic “dsync” Timing Adjustment - Background
To support advanced DCC initialization techniques (2 and >), difference between CM timing offset on old ch and new ch need to be < ~ +/- 6 timing offset units
Harmonic EQAM introduces SYNC timestamp delay which needs to be manually adjusted on per QAM basis using “dsync” command

48. Summary

49. New Technology Cornerstones
DOCSIS channel bonding for higher capacity
Enable faster HSD service
MxN mac domains now
Enable video over IP solutions
M-CMTS
Lower cost downstream PHY
De-couple DS and US ports
I-CMTS
Allows higher capacity in same box
Same wiring
New technologies are being pursued to address the DS bottleneck conundrum.
DOCSIS 3.0 uses a channel bonding technique to achieve higher capacity links, enable faster high speed data (HSD) service, and provide M x N MAC domains to enable video over IP solutions.
The idea of multiple grants per request or outstanding requests with DOCSIS 3.0 is also a good idea for US speed, but still doesn't fix the CPU issue on the CM.
The modular CMTS (M-CMTS) architecture is promoted to achieve better DOCSIS economics, lower cost DS PHY, and de-couple DS and US ports. One day we may see fiber optic nodes with DOCSIS physical layer chips embedded so we can use ingress cancellation at the node, digital links from the node back to the headend without the need to amplify, and no more laser clipping. Of course, this means all traffic needs to be DOCSIS-based on the US!
The integrated-CMTS idea is a way to use “off-the-shelf” external QAM boxes and the existing CMTS just for US connectivity. This allows return on invest and no “fork-lift” upgrades of the CMST chassis and/or limited cabling changes.

50. DOCSIS 3.0/M-CMTS Concluding Remarks
Promises ten times BW at fraction of cost
Introduce new HSD service of 50 to 75 Mbps
Widespread deployment of DS Bonding in 2008
Backward compatible with existing DOCSIS standards
Allows migration of existing customers to higher tier and DOCSIS 3.0 capability
Allows more BW for legacy DOCSIS 2.0 CM
Allows for a phased deployment
IPV6, US bonding, and other features will follow

51. Case Studies/ Architecture Ideas

52. Case Study 1
First 2 nodes, shows 2, 2x4 mac domains where 2 primary e-qam are overlaid on 2, 5x20 DS mac domains.  This is good because it allows freq reuse for the 5x20 DSs.  The US physical wiring will have to be changed or do connector re-assignements. 
One issue I see is you can do LB between DS within 2x4 mac domain, but not between the 2, 2x4 domains.  Because the 2, 5x20 DSs are not in the same physical network, they have to be 2 distinct LBGs. 
You can do bonding anywhere in these 2 nodes to give ~74 Mbps service or you could re-assign some BW from each primary e-qam for bonding to get 100 Mbps.
For the last 3 nodes, you have a 3x6 domain overlaid on all 3 nodes, a 1x2 for one node and a 1x4 for 2 nodes.  The same LB issue is here as well.   I can LB CMs within the 3x6 and make one of the 5x20 DSs part of that LBG, but not both 5x20 DSs.  Maybe the green group could be for modems you want to keep on a certain freq and put the purple and yellow in one big LBG.
Even though you only have 1 e-qam for pure bonding, you could "steal" from the primary e-qams for bonding, but at this point it is static allocation.  It will be much more efficient when we support dynamic allocation.
Total e-qam would be 7 per linecard, so you would run out by the time you feed 34 nodes.  5 nodes per linecard * 6 cards would be 30 nodes with 6*7 = 42 -qams with 7th card having 6 qams left to be used in some fashion.

53. Case Study 2
Load Balancing Group
Downstream Frequencies
Upstream Frequencies DF 1 DF 2 DF 3 DF 4 DF 5 UF 1 UF 2 UF 3 UF 4
Fiber Node a U U U U
FNa 1 2 3 4 D D D D D 1 2 3 4 5
Fiber Node b U U U U
FNb 1 2 3 4
Fiber Node c U U U U D
FNc 1 2 3 4
This looks almost the same as first case study on slide 4, but now instead of freq reuse on 5x20 DSs across 2 separate nodes, they are combined, then split feeding both nodes.  This would allow all DSs in first 2 nodes to be in the same LBG.  The con to this design is it requires more DS freqs or less bonding-only channels.
This uses 6 e-qam per card, so we could serve all 8 cards for 48 e-qam to serve 5*8 = 40 nodes.
Total speed for bonding will be dictated by BW allocation from primary e-qams. 5 D D D 1 2 3 D 4
Fiber Node d U U U U D
FNd 1 2 3 4 5
Fiber Node e U U U U
FNd 1 2 3 4

54. Case Study 3 Requires 8*6 = 48 e-qam per 10K
Load Balancing Group
For DOCSIS 2.0 .
Downstream Frequencies
Upstream Frequencies
Bonding Group
For DOCSIS 3.0 DF 1 DF 2 DF 3 DF 4 DF 5 UF 1 UF 2 UF 3 UF 4
Fiber Node a C0 C1 C4 C5
Requires 8*6 = 48 e-qam per 10K
Requires 2*8 = 16 e-qam connectors from NSG9000
FNa D D D D D 1 2 3 4 5
DS0
DS1
Fiber Node b C2 C3 C6 C7
FNb
Only used for bonding on Node C
DS2
Fiber Node c C8 C9
C10
C11
FNc
Blocks of 3 QAM
4th QAM optional
If 4th qam enabled, can serve 6, 5x20 linecards (30 nodes) D 5 D D D 1 2 3
Fiber Node d
FNd
C12
C13
C16
C17
DS4
DS3 D D 4 5
Fiber Node e
FNd
C14
C15
C18
C19

55. Case Study 4 Requires 8*6 = 48 e-qam per 10K
Load Balancing Group
For DOCSIS 2.0
Downstream Frequencies
Upstream Frequencies
Bonding Group
For DOCSIS 3.0 DF 1 DF 2 DF 3 DF 4 DF 5 UF 1 UF 2 UF 3 UF 4
Fiber Node a C0 C1 C4 C5
Requires 8*6 = 48 e-qam per 10K
Requires 2*8 = 16 e-qam connectors from NSG9000
FNa D D D D D 1 2 3 4 5
DS0
DS1
Fiber Node b C2 C3 C6 C7
FNb
Low usage DS
DS2
Fiber Node c C8 C9
C10
C11
Blocks of 3 QAM
4th QAM optional
If 4th qam enabled, can serve 6, 5x20 linecards (30 nodes)
How will the green DS5 get modems to register on it?  It can't be part of any load balance group.  It will be hap-hazard unless you assign a DS freq to the modems config file. D
FNc 5 D D D 1 2 3
Fiber Node d
C12
C13
C16
C17
FNd
DS4
DS3 D D 4 5
Fiber Node e
C14
C15
FNd
C18
C19

56. Common Option 4 DS freqs 2 US freqs 2 SPAs 3 e-qam chassis
Frequency
4 DS freqs
2 US freqs
2 SPAs
3 e-qam chassis
5, 2x4 domains + 2
SPA
DSs f 2 B f WB 1
609 P P P P P P
5x20
DSs
603 P P P P P
3.2 MHz 31
TDMA
6.4 MHz 24
ATDMA
Pros
2 bonding freqs / e-qam connector
Can offer 75 Mbps service
Plenty of growth in e-qam chassis
Spare slot can be used for N+1 or 3G40
Legacy = 2 DS/2 nodes & 2 US/1 node
68 nodes covered = ~ 7 linecards FN FN FN FN FN FN FN FN FN FN 1 2 3 4
Cons
41 e-qam connectors = 48 chs
Only 1 Primary freq / e-qam connector
Last DS on 7th card has no extra primary ch 5 6 7 8 9 10

57. Common Option Wiring