Flexible MAC Architecture (FMA) is the future of cable. But as operators consider its place in their roadmaps, the biggest question is when to make the move.
Of course, the answer depends on each operator’s unique needs and existing network, so in this article, we will provide a framework for contextualizing this important decision. Specifically, we will review: 1) where we are with FMA today, 2) the advantages of adopting FMA sooner and later and 3) the key network and business drivers influencing this decision.
The State of FMA
FMA standardizes the way that Flexible MAC architectures are implemented in the DOCSIS network — providing the ability to create interoperable, multi-vendor solutions that support the deployment of the MAC, wherever it resides. FMA paves the way to Remote MACPHY, and its ability to ensure interoperability is a large part of designing a best-of-breed network for 10G. One of the key advantages of FMA will be the integrated management and aggregation of the many devices in the field into a single, modern interface.
Today, FMA is in the early phase of development, which centers around supporting interoperable solutions for Remote MACPHY. The specifications for this phase are only now becoming formalized. In subsequent phases, a remote MAC core will come into play, followed by a fully virtualized access network. Interoperability testing events will be held in the first part of 2022 to prove solutions in multi-vendor Remote MACPHY environments. What this means for operators is simply that FMA is moving forward, but not all the pieces are yet in play.
Sooner or later?
Many of the crucial specifications, interfaces and data models for FMA have been defined, and vendor solutions are already in the works or starting early trials. FMA offers key interoperability advantages that make the transition to Remote MACPHY much simpler, in some regards. But it is important to remember that with the final specifications still in flux, there are working assumptions for early adopters that could ultimately affect deployments — such as multi-vendor interoperability and the impacts to the MSO back-office applications and servers.
One common pitfall is believing that FMA is a binary decision — all or nothing, and that there is only one path to Remote MACPHY. This is not the case. In fact, there are several pathways to Remote MACPHY. And for those operators looking for greater flexibility in timing and scale, there are a number of ways to build FMA into the roadmap without going all-in from the start. Some of these include migrating first to Remote PHY and later to Remote MACPHY, making software-only updates to existing distributed systems, implementing the Remote MACPHY Device as a node-based CMTS/CCAP and shifting to compliance with FMA over time.
It is also important to consider that while FMA presents a pathway to multiple efficiencies and performance benefits in Remote MACPHY, not all operators are yet set up to handle the operational challenges of such a distributed network. As operators review the actual deployment requirements of FMA equipment, one of the most valuable investments will be a close and symbiotic relationship with the solution vendors that are helping to design, develop and deploy these solutions — in order to ensure that all potential challenges are considered ahead of time.
Moving to FMA also means learning to do things differently. Operators will no longer be monitoring and managing a single chassis in a headend, but many devices installed closer to the subscribers they serve. Separating the management and data planes creates new challenges for support-side personnel and existing applications that are getting data from hundreds of devices.
For example, the lag resulting from the need to obtain information from a disaggregated network vs. an integrated chassis will make a difference for remote operations and field management. Furthermore, training is required for managing these remote devices and field technicians need to be trained for completely new tasks such as installing nodes on poles. The physical challenges of disaggregation combined with the back-office systems required to run these architectures are often the most overlooked components in network planning.
Network & business drivers
Operator priorities for flexibility, cost and performance will be the leading factors in making decisions around when to implement FMA. These priorities will be driven by each operator’s infrastructure and readiness to support the new standard.
Infrastructure investment
As operators invest in their fiber networks of the future, the decision of how deep to drive fiber and the implications for topographies and timing is one of the biggest factors to consider. For most, the goal is to create a more stable and cost-effective network that delivers competitive performance. Few operators are in a position to fully adopt Remote MACPHY to the exclusion of current systems and architectures.
In fact, the ability to leverage current back-office systems with confidence, while training up technicians to install and service new disaggregated equipment, is one of the most compelling reasons to make a more gradual transition to FMA. It is important to bear in mind that FMA is not necessarily a single, network-wide decision or one that must be implemented from the start.
Operator readiness
An early move to FMA requires the vision and commitment to work with a standard that is still in development, with the understanding that the availability of appropriate end-to-end network solutions may be gating items in a full network rollout.
Operators who are bullish on FMA must consider how those specifications might evolve over time, and how their subsequent need for available FMA solutions will drive their schedule of equipment purchases. These same operators are making significant investments into greater degrees of automation and FMA is enabling this by providing access to telemetry data using more modern open-source tools and protocols.
For operators to bridge effectively to FMA, they must have a comprehensive plan for porting back-office operations and processes. And to capitalize on the efficiencies and operational advantages of FMA, they’ll also need to map their implementation to the standard’s evolution and availability of related infrastructure components. It behooves operators to work with vendors who have a deep understanding of the latest FMA developments and how they translate into a unique set of requirements, components and processes for each network.
Summary
In short, FMA is promising, but still in development. While there is mounting pressure to incorporate FMA into roadmaps, operators should take full stock of their resources and capabilities in deciding when to jump in. Moreover, they should do so with an understanding of how various components — like their infrastructure investments, device management and technician training — will fit into their roadmaps.
As FMA continues to evolve and yield additional options to operators, those who have a clear picture of their network future will be in the best position to capitalize on its benefits. The key is understanding the many options available in the path to FMA.
