Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Dave Taht]

I dug out this old thread again...

https://www.broadband.io/c/get-broadband-grant-alerts-news/the-brothers-wisp-podcast

What is the request/grant latency in various gpons? DOCSIS-LL has it
below 2ms, I think.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 12:00 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/11/22 22:20, Karsten Thomann via NANOG wrote:
>
> >
> > Does anyone know the Asian market where they are using E-PON?
> > After my very short search it seems they provide best effort up to 1G 
> > without
> > any real plans...
>
> When I was in Malaysia years back, we did use ZTE for some EPON
> services. But we retired those and moved to GPON.
>
> Mark.



-- 
A pithy note on VOQs vs SQM: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/juniper/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Josh Luthman]

>Well, my dsl provider has like a 25/5 50/10 so clearly everybody has the
headroom to get to 10 at least.
>I mean, most users have no clue about such things.

Lol I'm sure you're no network operator Michael.  That's not accurate (well
your first statement).


On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 8:29 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> It's not always something the service provider has the ability to change.
>
>
>
> -
> 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: *"Michael Thomas" 
> *To: *"Mike Hammett" 
> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Saturday, June 11, 2022 2:38:29 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
>
>
> On 6/10/22 6:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Due to the demand being predominately in the downward direction,
> half-duplex (or effectively half-duplex) systems either allocate more TDMA
> slots or more channels to downstream, at the expense of upstream.
>
> Well, my dsl provider has like a 25/5 50/10 so clearly everybody has the
> headroom to get to 10 at least. Marketing, of course, but I wonder how many
> support calls they got because "my internet is slow" from saturated
> upstream with zoom calls. I mean, most users have no clue about such things.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Michael Thomas"  
> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Thursday, June 9, 2022 3:46:24 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
>
>
> On 6/9/22 1:26 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> > With 430 GB versus 32 GV average down versus up usage today, according
> > to your article, this is still not a case for symmetrical consumer
> > bandwidth. Yes, the upstream usage increased slightly more than the
> > downstream usage. But the ratio was still so big that it would take
> > decades for them to join. I doubt they ever will. Consumers just don’t
> > have that much days up to push yet, and probably never will.
> >
> > Also, a lot of that Usage can be explained by video conferencing
> > during Covid, which has dropped off significantly already.
> >
> >
> If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to
> burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users
> would be happy with that.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/11/22 22:20, Karsten Thomann via NANOG wrote:



Does anyone know the Asian market where they are using E-PON?
After my very short search it seems they provide best effort up to 1G without
any real plans...


When I was in Malaysia years back, we did use ZTE for some EPON 
services. But we retired those and moved to GPON.


Mark.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mike Hammett]

It's not always something the service provider has the ability to change. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Michael Thomas"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 2:38:29 PM 
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage 




On 6/10/22 6:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Due to the demand being predominately in the downward direction, half-duplex 
(or effectively half-duplex) systems either allocate more TDMA slots or more 
channels to downstream, at the expense of upstream. 



Well, my dsl provider has like a 25/5 50/10 so clearly everybody has the 
headroom to get to 10 at least. Marketing, of course, but I wonder how many 
support calls they got because "my internet is slow" from saturated upstream 
with zoom calls. I mean, most users have no clue about such things. 


Mike 









- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Michael Thomas"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 3:46:24 PM 
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage 


On 6/9/22 1:26 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: 
> With 430 GB versus 32 GV average down versus up usage today, according 
> to your article, this is still not a case for symmetrical consumer 
> bandwidth. Yes, the upstream usage increased slightly more than the 
> downstream usage. But the ratio was still so big that it would take 
> decades for them to join. I doubt they ever will. Consumers just don’t 
> have that much days up to push yet, and probably never will. 
> 
> Also, a lot of that Usage can be explained by video conferencing 
> during Covid, which has dropped off significantly already. 
> 
> 
If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to 
burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users 
would be happy with that. 

Mike 

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Dave Taht]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 1:22 PM Karsten Thomann via NANOG
 wrote:
>
> On Friday, 10 June 2022 10:15:15 CEST Chris Hills wrote:
> > On 10/06/2022 00:31, Mel Beckman wrote:
> > > Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be
> > > aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example,
> > > GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely
> > > deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream
> > > optical line rate.
> > Not all residential fiber is asymmetric. Nokia XGS-PON supports 9.953
> > Tx/Rx (e.g. LTF7226 transceiver).
> XGS-PON isn't Nokia specific and can be bought from many other vendors.
> Even as probably no one is deploying XG-PON in new deployments (10/2.5G), I
> don't believe ISP start selling symmetrical services to residential customers
> as a standard, even if the PON itself is symmetrical.
> I know you can get from many providers a symmetrical service on G-PON, but
> that is an option, not the default.
>
> Does anyone know the Asian market where they are using E-PON?
> After my very short search it seems they provide best effort up to 1G without
> any real plans...
>

My question is always: how are people using these technologies doing
queue management. I took apart one ONT so far, it supported RED and
hardware flow control, but if it were configured or not, couldn't
tell. Sonic (SF) had about 90ms of buffering in their upstream.


-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mel Beckman]

Right. But MOST is, which is what matters for the trend.  Existing asymmetric 
PONs is unlikely to be replaced for the next 20 years.   

-mel via cell

> On Jun 11, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Chris Hills  wrote:
> 
> On 10/06/2022 00:31, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be 
>> aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, 
>> GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, 
>> calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
> 
> Not all residential fiber is asymmetric. Nokia XGS-PON supports 9.953 Tx/Rx 
> (e.g. LTF7226 transceiver).
> 

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Karsten Thomann via NANOG]

On Friday, 10 June 2022 10:15:15 CEST Chris Hills wrote:
> On 10/06/2022 00:31, Mel Beckman wrote:
> > Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be
> > aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example,
> > GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely
> > deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream
> > optical line rate.
> Not all residential fiber is asymmetric. Nokia XGS-PON supports 9.953
> Tx/Rx (e.g. LTF7226 transceiver).
XGS-PON isn't Nokia specific and can be bought from many other vendors.
Even as probably no one is deploying XG-PON in new deployments (10/2.5G), I 
don't believe ISP start selling symmetrical services to residential customers 
as a standard, even if the PON itself is symmetrical.
I know you can get from many providers a symmetrical service on G-PON, but 
that is an option, not the default.

Does anyone know the Asian market where they are using E-PON?
After my very short search it seems they provide best effort up to 1G without 
any real plans...

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/10/22 6:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Due to the demand being predominately in the downward direction, 
half-duplex (or effectively half-duplex) systems either allocate more 
TDMA slots or more channels to downstream, at the expense of upstream.


Well, my dsl provider has like a 25/5 50/10 so clearly everybody has the 
headroom to get to 10 at least. Marketing, of course, but I wonder how 
many support calls they got because "my internet is slow" from saturated 
upstream with zoom calls. I mean, most users have no clue about such things.



Mike






-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com


*From: *"Michael Thomas" 
*To: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Thursday, June 9, 2022 3:46:24 PM
*Subject: *Re: Upstream bandwidth usage


On 6/9/22 1:26 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> With 430 GB versus 32 GV average down versus up usage today, according
> to your article, this is still not a case for symmetrical consumer
> bandwidth. Yes, the upstream usage increased slightly more than the
> downstream usage. But the ratio was still so big that it would take
> decades for them to join. I doubt they ever will. Consumers just don’t
> have that much days up to push yet, and probably never will.
>
> Also, a lot of that Usage can be explained by video conferencing
> during Covid, which has dropped off significantly already.
>
>
If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to
burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users
would be happy with that.

Mike

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Chris Hills]

On 10/06/2022 00:31, Mel Beckman wrote:

Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware 
that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the 
latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 
2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.


Not all residential fiber is asymmetric. Nokia XGS-PON supports 9.953 
Tx/Rx (e.g. LTF7226 transceiver).

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Jay Hennigan]

On 6/10/22 17:17, Mark Tinka wrote:

We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can 
support both GPON and XG-PON line cards.


Adtran offers the same functionality. As the wavelengths are different, 
both GPON and XGSPON can coexist on the same fiber plant with a single 
OLT transceiver supporting both. We are using Adtran gear for this and 
it's working fine.


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mike Hammett]

Less vanity over there? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 7:17:47 PM 
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage 



On 6/10/22 17:26, Kord Martin wrote: 

> 
> Especially when you consider that XGSPON and GPON and coexist. 

We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can 
support both GPON and XG-PON line cards. 

Just not seeing our market going in that direction yet. 

Mark. 

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Brandon Martin]

On 6/10/22 20:17, Mark Tinka wrote:
We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can 
support both GPON and XG-PON line cards.


Just not seeing our market going in that direction yet.


This isn't just Huawei. I know at least Adtran can do GPON+XGS-PON in 
the same chassis, and I'm pretty sure I remember Nokia telling me the 
same.  I'd imagine Calix can, too, if the other two big names in North 
America have it.


I know at least Adtran even has a combo card where the same card can 
handle optics with all the filters built in to do XGS-PON+GPON on the 
same fiber without external muxes and only consuming one port.  The 
pricing is even what I'd call not just reasonable but "compelling" for 
immediate deployment even if you don't plan to use the 10G function 
since it would of course drastically extend the useful lifespan of that 
card plus give you in-service upgrades to XGS-PON overlay if you 
equipped it with suitable optics from the get-go (which are also not 
overly expensive).


Given that the parts clearly exist for combo cards with combo optics, 
I'd imagine all of the major players have it in their portfolio at this 
point.


The XGS-PON ONTs are still about double the price of the GPON ONTs last 
I checked.

--
Brandon Martin

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Aled Morris via NANOG]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 01:23, Mark Tinka  wrote:

> We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can
> support both GPON and XG-PON line cards.
>

I've been installing PON equipment for 2+ years where all the ports can be
fitted with optics (SFPs) that support both GPON and XGS-PON simultaneously
on the same fibre.

Aled

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/10/22 17:26, Kord Martin wrote:



Especially when you consider that XGSPON and GPON and coexist.


We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can 
support both GPON and XG-PON line cards.


Just not seeing our market going in that direction yet.

Mark.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/10/22 12:01, Jared Mauch wrote:


You would be surprised.  The equipment isn't that expensive in
the grand scheme of things.


Fair point, it's not part of our scope at $day_job.

Most of the greenfields I'm seeing in my region are standard GPON, and 
I'm not hearing of existing deployments being upgraded to XG-PON. But 
then again, perhaps I don't have my hand on the pulse as much as I think 
I should do :-)...


Mark.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Kord Martin]

On 2022-06-10 6:01 a.m., Jared Mauch wrote:

You would be surprised.  The equipment isn't that expensive in
the grand scheme of things.


Especially when you consider that XGSPON and GPON and coexist.

K

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mike Hammett]

Due to the demand being predominately in the downward direction, half-duplex 
(or effectively half-duplex) systems either allocate more TDMA slots or more 
channels to downstream, at the expense of upstream. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Michael Thomas"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 3:46:24 PM 
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage 


On 6/9/22 1:26 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: 
> With 430 GB versus 32 GV average down versus up usage today, according 
> to your article, this is still not a case for symmetrical consumer 
> bandwidth. Yes, the upstream usage increased slightly more than the 
> downstream usage. But the ratio was still so big that it would take 
> decades for them to join. I doubt they ever will. Consumers just don’t 
> have that much days up to push yet, and probably never will. 
> 
> Also, a lot of that Usage can be explained by video conferencing 
> during Covid, which has dropped off significantly already. 
> 
> 
If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to 
burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users 
would be happy with that. 

Mike 

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Masataka Ohta]

Michael Thomas wrote:

If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to 
burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users 
would be happy with that.


Seemingly, to distinguish inexpensive economy and expensive
business class services.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Jared Mauch]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:31:47AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/10/22 09:52, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
> 
> > I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ 
> > against 7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 100.
> > 
> > By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was 
> > promoted for "Enterprise clients".
> > CPE cost hurts in this case.
> > But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the 
> > same tree.
> 
> Yes, XG-PON.
> 
> Most FTTH operator stories I've heard of are still running regular GPON,
> thought.
> 
> Seems XG-PON has a high barrier-to-entry for el-cheapo home consumers.

You would be surprised.  The equipment isn't that expensive in
the grand scheme of things.

- Jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

RE: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG]

ONT always has SFP for PON. It is inside (built-in) – this way is cheaper.  OK. 
In this case, it is not SFP because it is not “pluggable”.
1G and 10G optics have a big cost difference for ONT.

From: Dave Bell [mailto:m...@geordish.org]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard 
Cc: Mel Beckman ; Raymond Burkholder ; 
nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

We are rolling out XGS-PON everywhere which is 10G symmetric. Just because the 
PON runs at 10G, doesn't mean you need to provision all of your customers at 
10G.

We have a range of residential packages from 150Mbps up to 1Gbps symmetric. The 
ONT is the same in all situations. There is no SFP cost, due to it being a 
copper port. If we were to offer residential packages beyond 1G, a CPE swap 
would be required, but there is little demand for that... yet...

The future is bright for PON with NG-PON2, and 50G PON on their way.

Regards,
Dave

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 08:54, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against 
7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 100.

By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted 
for "Enterprise clients".
CPE cost hurts in this case.
But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the 
same tree.

Ed/
-Original Message-
From: NANOG 
[mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard<mailto:nanog-bounces%2Bvasilenko.eduard>=huawei@nanog.org<mailto:huawei@nanog.org>]
 On Behalf Of Mel Beckman
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 4:11 AM
To: Raymond Burkholder mailto:r...@oneunified.net>>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that 
GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber.

-mel via cell

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder 
> mailto:r...@oneunified.net>> wrote:
>
> 
>
>> On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>> Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be 
>>> aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, 
>>> GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, 
>>> calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
>>
>> Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator 
>> decision.
>
> There are also vendor issues involved.  I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical 
> line' rate.  Which becomes a theoretical thing.  If the line cards aren't set 
> up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen.  And I think the 
> line cards can also be easily over-subscribed.  Oh, and due to the two or 
> three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited.
>
> So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire.  
> Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is 
> provisioning a GPON infrastructure.  Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 
> 10G GPON.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/10/22 10:09, Dave Bell wrote:

We are rolling out XGS-PON everywhere which is 10G symmetric. Just 
because the PON runs at 10G, doesn't mean you need to provision all of 
your customers at 10G.


We have a range of residential packages from 150Mbps up to 1Gbps 
symmetric. The ONT is the same in all situations. There is no SFP 
cost, due to it being a copper port. If we were to offer residential 
packages beyond 1G, a CPE swap would be required, but there is little 
demand for that... yet...


Indeed - XG-PON does not mean you have to deliver 10Gbps to customers. 
It just makes it easier to offer higher bandwidth that is symmetrical, 
at what-should-be a lower cost than Active-E, for more customers at the 
same time.


Mark.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/10/22 09:52, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:


I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against 
7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 100.

By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted for 
"Enterprise clients".
CPE cost hurts in this case.
But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the 
same tree.


Yes, XG-PON.

Most FTTH operator stories I've heard of are still running regular GPON, 
thought.


Seems XG-PON has a high barrier-to-entry for el-cheapo home consumers.

Mark.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Dave Bell]

We are rolling out XGS-PON everywhere which is 10G symmetric. Just because
the PON runs at 10G, doesn't mean you need to provision all of your
customers at 10G.

We have a range of residential packages from 150Mbps up to 1Gbps symmetric.
The ONT is the same in all situations. There is no SFP cost, due to it
being a copper port. If we were to offer residential packages beyond 1G, a
CPE swap would be required, but there is little demand for that... yet...

The future is bright for PON with NG-PON2, and 50G PON on their way.

Regards,
Dave

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 08:54, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG 
wrote:

> I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$
> against 7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 100.
>
> By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was
> promoted for "Enterprise clients".
> CPE cost hurts in this case.
> But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on
> the same tree.
>
> Ed/
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org]
> On Behalf Of Mel Beckman
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 4:11 AM
> To: Raymond Burkholder 
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
>
> I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given
> that GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber.
>
> -mel via cell
>
> > On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> >> On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> >>> Adam,
> >>>
> >>> Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not
> be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example,
> GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed,
> calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
> >>
> >> Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator
> decision.
> >
> > There are also vendor issues involved.  I am glad that Mel mentioned
> 'optical line' rate.  Which becomes a theoretical thing.  If the line cards
> aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen.  And I
> think the line cards can also be easily over-subscribed.  Oh, and due to
> the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more
> limited.
> >
> > So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with
> fire.  Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the
> ISP is provisioning a GPON infrastructure.  Which, I suppose, depends if it
> is 1G or 10G GPON.
>

RE: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG]

I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against 
7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 100.

By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted 
for "Enterprise clients".
CPE cost hurts in this case.
But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the 
same tree.

Ed/
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Mel Beckman
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 4:11 AM
To: Raymond Burkholder 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that 
GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber. 

-mel via cell

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>>> Adam,
>>> 
>>> Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be 
>>> aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, 
>>> GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, 
>>> calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
>> 
>> Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator 
>> decision.
> 
> There are also vendor issues involved.  I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical 
> line' rate.  Which becomes a theoretical thing.  If the line cards aren't set 
> up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen.  And I think the 
> line cards can also be easily over-subscribed.  Oh, and due to the two or 
> three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited.
> 
> So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire.  
> Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is 
> provisioning a GPON infrastructure.  Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 
> 10G GPON.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/9/22 21:19, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:



OVBI: Average upstream data usage has nearly tripled since 2018 



People love to share.

It's a pattern we began to see back in 2009, which was the biggest 
motivator for us to deliver FTTH services in select parks and dense 
residences, when Facebook and Youtube were taking off.


Mark.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/9/22 22:46, Michael Thomas wrote:



If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to 
burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users 
would be happy with that.


The issue is generally the underlying last mile access. Even GPON is not 
symmetric, although it offers higher bandwidth than legacy solutions.


Mark.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/9/22 22:26, Mel Beckman wrote:

With 430 GB versus 32 GV average down versus up usage today, according 
to your article, this is still not a case for symmetrical consumer 
bandwidth. Yes, the upstream usage increased slightly more than the 
downstream usage. But the ratio was still so big that it would take 
decades for them to join. I doubt they ever will. Consumers just don’t 
have that much days up to push yet, and probably never will. 


I don't think download rate will ever equal upload rate, never mind get 
close. But certainly, it has been growing for the past 15 or so years, 
and will continue to rise as the Internet continues to become a place of 
community than it originally has been.





Also, a lot of that Usage can be explained by video conferencing 
during Covid, which has dropped off significantly already.


That certainly has contributed, but I expect that there are more people 
uploading content for day-to-day life than for work.


Mark.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Brandon Jackson]

>> Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator 
>> decision.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision. The downstream has a single "talker",
the OLT, so it can use 100% of the "airtime" for itself to talk to
anyone on the port.

The upstream on the other hand has 1-32 or even more talkers that all
have to be syncrozied to talk at specific times even including guard
bands to account for slight differences is time keeping, not only
that, not every ONT is at the same fiber distance so an ONT that is
closer must wait for a signal from an ONT that is farther to "pass"
it.

All of this creates some inefficiencies in the upstream. Now, it has
gotten better with better technology of course but GPON is already
12-19ish years old.


--
Brandon Jackson
bjack...@napshome.net

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:12 PM Mel Beckman  wrote:
>
> I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that 
> GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber.
>
> -mel via cell
>
> > On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder  wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> >> On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> >>> Adam,
> >>>
> >>> Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be 
> >>> aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, 
> >>> GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely 
> >>> deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream 
> >>> optical line rate.
> >>
> >> Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator 
> >> decision.
> >
> > There are also vendor issues involved.  I am glad that Mel mentioned 
> > 'optical line' rate.  Which becomes a theoretical thing.  If the line cards 
> > aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen.  And I 
> > think the line cards can also be easily over-subscribed.  Oh, and due to 
> > the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more 
> > limited.
> >
> > So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire. 
> >  Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is 
> > provisioning a GPON infrastructure.  Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G 
> > or 10G GPON.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Matthew Crocker]

GPON is TDM (Time Division Multiplexing).  The downstream is essentially OC-48 
(2.4Gbps).   The OLT sets the clock and each ONT has a specific timeslot for 
uploading.  Some vendors can adjust the timeslot reservations to ‘guarantee’ 
specific upload speeds to specific ONTs

From: NANOG  on behalf of Mel 
Beckman 
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:31 PM
To: Adam Thompson 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or 
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Adam,

Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware 
that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the 
latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 
2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.

 -mel

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Adam Thompson  wrote:
> However, if you're talking about fiber service, it's pretty much pure 
> marketing-dept-driven BS, combined with some vague justification of not 
> letting TOR nodes or copyright-ignoring seeders/Warez-providers/etc. 
> overwhelm the network in unexpected ways.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mel Beckman]

I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that 
GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber. 

-mel via cell

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>>> Adam,
>>> 
>>> Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be 
>>> aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, 
>>> GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, 
>>> calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
>> 
>> Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator 
>> decision.
> 
> There are also vendor issues involved.  I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical 
> line' rate.  Which becomes a theoretical thing.  If the line cards aren't set 
> up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen.  And I think the 
> line cards can also be easily over-subscribed.  Oh, and due to the two or 
> three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited.
> 
> So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire.  
> Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is 
> provisioning a GPON infrastructure.  Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 
> 10G GPON.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Raymond Burkholder]

On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:


On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:

Adam,

Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not 
be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For 
example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most 
widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps 
upstream optical line rate.


Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an 
operator decision.


There are also vendor issues involved.  I am glad that Mel mentioned 
'optical line' rate.  Which becomes a theoretical thing.  If the line 
cards aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be 
seen.  And I think the line cards can also be easily over-subscribed.  
Oh, and due to the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream 
becomes even more limited.


So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with 
fire.  Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the 
ISP is provisioning a GPON infrastructure.  Which, I suppose, depends if 
it is 1G or 10G GPON.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:

Adam,

Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware 
that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the 
latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 
2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.


Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator 
decision.


Mike

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Adam Thompson]

Ah, I did miss that, you're right.  We don't have very much GPON up where I am.
-Adam

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

From: Mel Beckman 
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 6:31:34 PM
To: Adam Thompson 
Cc: Michael Thomas ; nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

Adam,

Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware 
that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the 
latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 
2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.

 -mel

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Adam Thompson  wrote:
> However, if you're talking about fiber service, it's pretty much pure 
> marketing-dept-driven BS, combined with some vague justification of not 
> letting TOR nodes or copyright-ignoring seeders/Warez-providers/etc. 
> overwhelm the network in unexpected ways.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mel Beckman]

Adam,

Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware 
that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the 
latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 
2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.

 -mel

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Adam Thompson  wrote:
> However, if you're talking about fiber service, it's pretty much pure 
> marketing-dept-driven BS, combined with some vague justification of not 
> letting TOR nodes or copyright-ignoring seeders/Warez-providers/etc. 
> overwhelm the network in unexpected ways.

RE: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Adam Thompson]

On DOCSIS systems, upload/download ratios are frequency-mapped timeslot ratios 
that are not adjustable in real-time.
On xDSL systems, upload/download ratios are - VERY roughly speaking - a 
function of how much spectrum is allocated to each direction based on each 
individual line's characteristics, and also not adjustable in real-time.
Most fixed-wireless systems have similar limitations to one or the other above, 
although they vary in the details.

Anecdote: I used to maintain/sell/support a system that could automatically 
"tune" DSL service for the prevailing line conditions (as these change with 
age, weather, interference, etc.) and I recall learning from one customer that 
auto-tuning any more often than every 24hrs became *severely* 
counter-productive, because the connection had to drop and re-negotiate every 
time a change was made because of the way DSL modems work; our product had to 
incorporate a fall-back where we reverted to ADSL 1M rates if the line was 
still down an hour later, in case the remote modem just refused to renegotiate 
at what should have been a perfectly valid profile (speed) for some reason or 
other.


So the short answer is: because the harder limitation to solve is the last-mile 
technology, not the choke-points at the network edges where shaping happens.  
All that rate-shaping in the core is generally about preventing the downstream 
packet(s) that would overload the last-mile from ever reaching the last-mile 
device in the first place.


However, if you're talking about fiber service, it's pretty much pure 
marketing-dept-driven BS, combined with some vague justification of not letting 
TOR nodes or copyright-ignoring seeders/Warez-providers/etc. overwhelm the 
network in unexpected ways.


-Adam (who acknowledges he runs a very unusual SP network where rate-limiting 
is unheard of)

Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
MERLIN
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
https://www.merlin.mb.ca
Chat with me on Teams: athomp...@merlin.mb.ca

> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG  On Behalf
> Of Michael Thomas
> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 3:46 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
> 
> 
> On 6/9/22 1:26 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> > With 430 GB versus 32 GV average down versus up usage today,
> according
> > to your article, this is still not a case for symmetrical consumer
> > bandwidth. Yes, the upstream usage increased slightly more than the
> > downstream usage. But the ratio was still so big that it would take
> > decades for them to join. I doubt they ever will. Consumers just
> don’t
> > have that much days up to push yet, and probably never will.
> >
> > Also, a lot of that Usage can be explained by video conferencing
> > during Covid, which has dropped off significantly already.
> >
> >
> If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to
> burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users
> would be happy with that.
> 
> Mike

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mel Beckman]

Because to maximize bandwith efficiency, ISPs, me included, sell that unused 
upstream bandwidth for website hosting and video streaming. 

-mel via cell

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 1:47 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 6/9/22 1:26 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> With 430 GB versus 32 GV average down versus up usage today, according to 
>> your article, this is still not a case for symmetrical consumer bandwidth. 
>> Yes, the upstream usage increased slightly more than the downstream usage. 
>> But the ratio was still so big that it would take decades for them to join. 
>> I doubt they ever will. Consumers just don’t have that much days up to push 
>> yet, and probably never will.
>> 
>> Also, a lot of that Usage can be explained by video conferencing during 
>> Covid, which has dropped off significantly already.
>> 
>> 
> If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to burst 
> to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users would be 
> happy with that.
> 
> Mike
> 

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Niels Bakker]

* m...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) [Thu 09 Jun 2022, 22:46 CEST]:
If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able 
to burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most 
users would be happy with that.


As SBC Global's peering policy roughly two decades ago stated,

"No requirement for a balanced traffic exchange ratio due primarily 
to the asymmetric nature of current broadband metallic transmission 
systems such as ADSL and cable modems."



-- Niels.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/9/22 1:26 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
With 430 GB versus 32 GV average down versus up usage today, according 
to your article, this is still not a case for symmetrical consumer 
bandwidth. Yes, the upstream usage increased slightly more than the 
downstream usage. But the ratio was still so big that it would take 
decades for them to join. I doubt they ever will. Consumers just don’t 
have that much days up to push yet, and probably never will.


Also, a lot of that Usage can be explained by video conferencing 
during Covid, which has dropped off significantly already.



If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to 
burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users 
would be happy with that.


Mike

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

[Mel Beckman]

With 430 GB versus 32 GV average down versus up usage today, according to your 
article, this is still not a case for symmetrical consumer bandwidth. Yes, the 
upstream usage increased slightly more than the downstream usage. But the ratio 
was still so big that it would take decades for them to join. I doubt they ever 
will. Consumers just don’t have that much days up to push yet, and probably 
never will.

Also, a lot of that Usage can be explained by video conferencing during Covid, 
which has dropped off significantly already.

 -mel

On Jun 9, 2022, at 12:22 PM, Fletcher Kittredge  wrote:



OVBI: Average upstream data usage has nearly tripled since 
2018

--
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Upstream bandwidth usage

[Fletcher Kittredge]

OVBI: Average upstream data usage has nearly tripled since 2018


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net