Re: Superfluous advertisement (was: Friday's Random Comment)

2016-05-01 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:10:44 -, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" said: > A use case for a longer prefix with the same nexthop: > >F > / \ > D E > | | > B C > \ / >A Am I the only one thinking "RFC4264" here? :) pgpI3q583g2Ao.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Standards for last mile performance

2016-05-01 Thread Josh Reynolds
Disagreeing is okay. It wouldn't make you any less wrong though :P On May 1, 2016 3:58 AM, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > > On 1/May/16 10:55, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > > No. Active has higher initial and ongoing plant costs (cabinet power, > > cabinet wear and tear, more battery

Re: Superfluous advertisement (was: Friday's Random Comment)

2016-05-01 Thread Randy Bush
F / \ D E | | B C \ / A Suppose A is a customer of B and C. >>> >>> This is possible, but only remotely probable. In the real world, D and >>> E are likely peered, as are B and C. >> >> "likely?" with what probability? any

RE: Superfluous advertisement (was: Friday's Random Comment)

2016-05-01 Thread Russ White
> >>F > >> / \ > >> D E > >> | | > >> B C > >> \ / > >>A > >> > >> Suppose A is a customer of B and C. > > > > This is possible, but only remotely probable. In the real world, D and > > E are likely peered, as are B and C. > > "likely?" with what probability? any

Re: Standards for last mile performance

2016-05-01 Thread Mark Tinka
On 1/May/16 10:55, Josh Reynolds wrote: > No. Active has higher initial and ongoing plant costs (cabinet power, > cabinet wear and tear, more battery banks, chargers, etc). You also > end up using far, far less fiber strands. > I tend to disagree, but this is one of those debates that could go

Re: Standards for last mile performance

2016-05-01 Thread Josh Reynolds
In addition, the upgrade path uses the same strands simultaneously. On May 1, 2016 3:46 AM, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > > On 30/Apr/16 20:36, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > > For us (FTTH) we had/have enough aggressive foresight to do smaller > > splits.. 1x16. Some are doing 1x2's

Re: Standards for last mile performance

2016-05-01 Thread Josh Reynolds
No. Active has higher initial and ongoing plant costs (cabinet power, cabinet wear and tear, more battery banks, chargers, etc). You also end up using far, far less fiber strands. On May 1, 2016 3:46 AM, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > > On 30/Apr/16 20:36, Josh Reynolds wrote: > >

Re: Standards for last mile performance

2016-05-01 Thread Mark Tinka
On 30/Apr/16 20:36, Josh Reynolds wrote: > For us (FTTH) we had/have enough aggressive foresight to do smaller > splits.. 1x16. Some are doing 1x2's or 1x4's at the corner somewhere into > 1x16's or 1x8's, so at the point where you start to hit decent saturation > you can just shrink the