Oh, I'm thinking of EAPS, which is the Extreme Networks variant that was out pretty early on. (Another Ring Protection SONET-like protocol)
On Mar 28, 2017 6:54 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: I think you are answering No to the wrong question. *From:* Josh Reynolds *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 5:46 PM *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] the unicorn is here! was: Small Scale PON For clarification: Currently no: ERP, ERPS, Trill, SPB, FabricPath, ITU G8032, ITU G8032v2, MC-LAG, etc I probably missed some Netgear variant or someshit... On Mar 28, 2017 6:40 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: Again: NO On Mar 28, 2017 6:26 PM, "Gino Villarini" <[email protected]> wrote: > No? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_Ring_Protection_Switching > > From: Af <[email protected]> on behalf of Josh Reynolds < > [email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:51 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the unicorn is here! was: Small Scale PON > > Nope... > > > > *Gino Villarini* > President > Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 > > On Mar 28, 2017 5:38 PM, "Gino Villarini" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Huh ist it G8032? Even Planet Sw have it >> >> From: Af <[email protected]> on behalf of Josh Reynolds < >> [email protected]> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 4:35 PM >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the unicorn is here! was: Small Scale PON >> >> No Erps, that's a Extreme Networks standard anyway. >> >> >> >> *Gino Villarini* >> President >> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >> >> On Mar 28, 2017 3:18 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Interesting in knowing if the uplink will do erps rings. >>> >>> *From:* Gino Villarini >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:16 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] the unicorn is here! was: Small Scale PON >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Af <[email protected]> on behalf of PE R < >>> [email protected]> >>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> Date: Monday, March 27, 2017 at 7:52 PM >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> OLT subscriber ranges can actually range to 512 (vs 256) per OLT or >>> higher, or, mix with XGS in the same shelf. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Gino Villarini* >>> President >>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:06 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> Put it this way, for each connection on AE you have two SFP optics and a >>> port on a switch. You also probably want to battery back that. >>> >>> For gpon you just push your 8 or 16 or 32 subs to a splitter that can >>> fit inside someone's pocket and then single strand to your OLT with your >>> non-$800 or so from what I remember Calix Pon optic :P >>> >>> Battery back the OLT, sure, but that's anywhere from 64 to 256 subs per, >>> and a lot lower battery requirements. >>> >>> I think your Calix experience has really skewed you to what's out there, >>> to be fair. >>> >>> On Mar 27, 2017 4:58 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yes and no. Pretty much the same amount of fiber depending on where you >>> locate the splitters or switches. >>> >>> On AE you battery back the switch. >>> On GPON you battery back the OLT/OIM. >>> >>> At the remote cabinet, you either have a cheap switch and SFPs. >>> -or- >>> You have an expensive OLT/OIM and splitter. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Josh Reynolds >>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 3:53 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> AE requires a lot more electronics and optics. And fiber. And battery >>> backup. Etc. >>> >>> On Mar 27, 2017 4:33 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Years ago, there was a break even point on active vs PON. If you had 16 >>> or more in an area that could take a PON it was worth doing the PON. >>> But that was comparing Calix AE vs Calix PON. If you do AE like >>> Sterling I don't think PON is ever cost effective compared to Calix PON. >>> >>> With PON you still have to have a drop to each home. The cost of the >>> cable is in the placement, not in the cable itself. >>> So the question is, where do you place the splitter vs where do you >>> place the switch and SFPs. Personally, I would do it Sterling style on new >>> greenfield. The ONLY reason I do it with the expensive PON is we are a >>> regulated common carrier with provider of last resort obligations. I have >>> to give POTS that is battery backed up, legally required to do this. >>> >>> Cannot risk a 911 call not going through due to a power outage etc. >>> Cannot trust the customer to not unplug a UPS. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett >>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:11 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> Yeah, so PON vs AE was actually the next research project for me to >>> tackle. >>> >>> It seems like there ought to be savings with PON because of lower fiber >>> count.....lower fiber count ought to lead to smaller/cheaper enclosures. >>> Less junk at the head end too. I haven't gotten that far yet, but I >>> was thinking I might "scrimp" with PON. You're saying maybe not? >>> >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: 3/27/2017 4:54:08 PM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> I would be worried that it will go the way of some of their other ideas. >>> Cheap... you get what you pay for. >>> >>> FTTH, I would rather pay more and know it will be solid and be around in >>> the years to come. >>> Not an area where you want to scrimp. If you want to scrimp go active >>> ethernet. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett >>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 12:56 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> Well....I have to build with what's available today. If I delay to wait >>> for the next hot product, I'll always be waiting. >>> >>> Besides, I honestly don't know what Ubiquiti brings to the table that >>> other vendors don't. I suppose it will be cost competitive, but that's >>> less important to me than having it just work. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Jon Langeler" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: 3/27/2017 2:52:03 PM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> With ubiquiti shipping real soon, you might want to wait >>> >>> Jon Langeler >>> Michwave Technologies, Inc. >>> >>> >>> On Mar 27, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I asked the Alphion sales rep about this. He says the optics are coded, >>> yes. As far as mixing ONT from one vendor with an OLT from another he said >>> in essence GPON is a standard, but it isn't usually tested across vendors >>> so whether it works fine, works with bugs, or doesn't work at all is going >>> to be a matter of chance. >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: 3/23/2017 2:54:04 PM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> No, generally speaking there is no crossvendor compatibility with GPON. >>> >>> Jared >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
