Interesting

On Aug 1, 2017 10:01 AM, "Chuck Hogg" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ONT's are sub $30.  Put 200 subs on the chassis and see what your overall
> cost is.  You'll save about $7k.  Also ZTE is 2 cards at 16 ports per card.
>  32 total PON ports.
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Jon Langeler <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I saw ZTE starting at $2k plus. How is that cheaper? Also is the
>> management via CLI?
>>
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:36 AM, Chuck Hogg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm surprised you are bothering with UBNT when a platform like ZTE is
>> significantly more stable.   Cheaper too.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:35 PM Jason McKemie <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The Calix active stuff is $$$$$ though, especially when you do the CSFP
>>> modules.  Something like the Ignitenet Fusionswitch fiber and Fiberstore
>>> bidi SFPs is much more reasonable.  I can sacrifice 1RU per 24 customers
>>> for that kind of price difference.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:06 PM, George Skorup <[email protected]
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I were you, I would take a serious look at GPON shelves like ZTE and
>>>> Calix. CSFP modules let you put two BiDi AE customers on a single slot. 24
>>>> port line-card = 48 AE customers. Then I think you can do 8 or 16 port PON
>>>> cards, 1:32 split = 256 or 512 customers on a single 3U? 4U? chassis, + the
>>>> 48 AE customers. This is probably what we're going to end up doing with the
>>>> AE deployment we're managing now. The AE is extremely underutilized and it
>>>> should've been GPON from the get-go.
>>>>
>>>> If you're doing BiDi now and all the customers home-run to your
>>>> cabinet, put the GPON splitters at the cabinet. Cake walk. Same boat we're
>>>> in. Except some retrofit because they used a PAIR per customer. And
>>>> Clearfield built everything duplex LC. So one strand won't get used in the
>>>> field. Big whoop. Call the unused one a backup. I love it when nobody
>>>> listens to me. Coulda started BiDi and went right to GPON with minimal
>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>> On 7/31/2017 3:29 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>>>>
>>> Ok, so that is the share ratio then.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I put on 18 customers on a port they would all share the 2.5 down by
>>>> 1.25 up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or if I use 8 instead 4 of the UBNT Fiber OLT I can get 9 customers on
>>>> that ratio.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would be 8 U plus 4 U space, which I think is probably my max
>>>> amount of rack space in the cabinets I am using right now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is likely a lot less power than the 12U of 48 port switches I can
>>>> use right now, but the share ratio is obviously much worse in the long run.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I do a Hybrid and put 4 of the OLT, and still have 4x48 ports
>>>> active…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then in the future if I run into clients complaining about their 1Gbps
>>>> rate plan not being fast enough on the share ratio of 1 to 18, I can move
>>>> them back to 1 to 1 active.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 31, 2017 2:22 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *To:* [email protected]
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] UBNT OLT Transition from Active Ethernet to GPON
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GPON is 2.5 downstream 1.25 upstream per port.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"Sterling Jacobson" <[email protected]>
>>>> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>>> *Sent: *Monday, July 31, 2017 3:19:36 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] UBNT OLT Transition from Active Ethernet to GPON
>>>>
>>>> Anyone tried their PON OLT CPE and OLT 8 port (128 clients per port) 1U
>>>> unit?
>>>>
>>>> I see pricing around $70 retail for OLT, but haven't seen pricing yet
>>>> for the OLT 1U unit.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm active fiber right now, so I have full 1 to 1 panels in the
>>>> rack already.
>>>>
>>>> If I wanted to 'migrate' to OLT from active I would need some sort of
>>>> transition panel/setup right?
>>>>
>>>> Right now my density is 48 ports per 1U 1 to 1 single family home
>>>> connections.
>>>>
>>>> The UBNT Fiber OLT has 8 ports handling up to 128 clients each, with
>>>> 20Gbps uplink capability (not quite sure on those split details yet).
>>>>
>>>> I currently only take a max of 576 per cabinet on active, so I could
>>>> easily use just one of these UBNT fiber OLT units.
>>>> If I don't care about the share ratio I guess, I would just get another
>>>> 576 panel count that spliced 72 count to each port and I'm done.
>>>>
>>>> I'm unclear what that panel/splice would look like though since I've
>>>> never actually done GPON.
>>>>
>>>> And I would probably want to not load up that many per port, and
>>>> instead maybe get four of the UBNT Fiber OLT units.
>>>> That would take up 4U of rack space, the fanout would probably still
>>>> take up 4U of rack space, for a total of 8 U.
>>>> And I would have instead an 18 customer to 1 port on the GPON instead
>>>> of 72 which I like better for future use.
>>>>
>>>> Do these UFiber OLT 1U rackmount units share just 1Gbps per each of the
>>>> 8 ports? That would only be 8Gbps needed total.
>>>> So I assume the GPON spec they are using can transmit more than that
>>>> per each of the 8 GPON ports, right?
>>>>
>>>> --
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to