Randy;
Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the
last mile? Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly
multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units?
Any thoughts on good places to start for an english language speaker to
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the
last mile? Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly
multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units?
Any thoughts on good places to
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:58:48 CST, Will Clayton said:
enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of
a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified
infrastructure.
The same way we appeased them the *last* time we gave them incentives to
Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Sent: Wed 12/2/2009 1:35 PM
To: Fletcher Kittredge
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the
last mile? Would it adapt well from
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
You might look into what's being done in Sweden then, here there are
municipality networks who dig up the streets and does fiber to the
individual house in suburbia (you have to trench your own land though,
4dm deep, 1-2dm wide, they only dig in the street put down
You might look into what's being done in Sweden then, here there are
municipality networks who dig up the streets and does fiber to the
individual house in suburbia (you have to trench your own land though,
4dm deep, 1-2dm wide, they only dig in the street put down the pipe in
your trench).
-Original Message-
From: Curtis Maurand [mailto:cmaur...@xyonet.com]
SNIP
I'd look more to what they're doing in Rochester, NY:
http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network
Run it in the sewers. The sewer system runs to every building and
household in the municipality. No
Thanks for the pointers, Mikael. unfortunately, my Swedish is not much
better than my Japanese... But it is a good start and I am sure I will find
some sort of English description somewhere.
I should have been a bit more explicit in my question: I am not concerned
on the routing of the last
I'd look more to what they're doing in Rochester, NY:
http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network
Run it in the sewers. The sewer system runs to every building and
household in the municipality. No need to re-trench anything.
Ahh .. the TISP :
http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html
Mackinnon, Ian wrote:
snip
In the UK more homes have fixed wire telephony than mains sewers or
water.
Not sure what that means to this discussion :-)
In the US as well, but if you're trying to run a new fiber network and
you want it uderground, the sewers in metro areas are a good place to
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
Thanks for the pointers, Mikael. unfortunately, my Swedish is not much
better than my Japanese... But it is a good start and I am sure I will find
some sort of English description somewhere.
Here is a cut/paste of the thing run thru google
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
Thanks for the pointers, Mikael. unfortunately, my Swedish is not much
better than my Japanese... But it is a good start and I am sure I
will find
some sort of English description somewhere.
Here is a cut/paste of the
Another issue - how far does the technology support open access/infrastructure
sharing/wholesaling? Not only are networks that get public funding likely to
be expected to provide these, but there is evidence that they are important
financially.
Benoit Felten's presentation at eComm Europe
Very much it depends on the case.
In price perspective Active Ethernet is cheaper (for the active equipment)
for both CAPEX and OPEX. Also it is reacher in features. Just
for comparison 2.5Gbit G-PON solution cost about the same as reasonable
10Gig FTTH active ethernet solution. If you do
Generally Ethernet itself support in the last years natively Openaccess.
But first you need to answer to youself what type of Openness you want?
Open Access on Layer3 level? As it is made by the ADSL L3 LLU?
If so, then both Active and passive FTTH Ethernet are absolutley ready for
it. Every
by homeowners' insurance.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Holstein [mailto:michael.holst...@csuohio.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:34 AM
To: Curtis Maurand
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
I'd look more to what they're doing in Rochester, NY:
http
Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the
last mile? Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly
multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units?
Any thoughts on good places to start for an english language speaker to
learn
Luke Marrott wrote:
I'm wondering what everyones thoughts are in regards to FTTH using Active
Ethernet or Passive. I work for a FTTH Provider that has done Active
Ethernet on a few networks so I'm always biased in discussions, but I don't
know anyone with experience in PON.
Active is the way
On 01/12/09 10:43 -0600, Justin Shore wrote:
Active is the way to go. Passive is merely a stepping stone on the way
to active. Passive only makes sense (in some cases) if you are 1) fiber
poor and 2) not doing a greenfield deployment. If you have the fiber to
work with or if you are
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.com wrote:
Luke Marrott wrote:
I'm wondering what everyones thoughts are in regards to FTTH using Active
Ethernet or Passive. I work for a FTTH Provider that has done Active
Ethernet on a few networks so I'm always biased in
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Dan White wrote:
However, there are some advantages to GPON - particularly if you're
deploying high bandwidth video services. PON ONTs share 2.4Gb/s of
bandwidth downstream, which means you can support more than a gig of video
on each PON, if deploying in dense mode.
You
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
You don't need to supply more than a gig per household,
640K ought to be enough for anybody. (oft mis-attributed to Bill
Gates) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used
dialup, you had
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, JC Dill wrote:
If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used
dialup, you had suggested that ISPs would be putting in gigabit services
to homes, people would have laughed. Yet today, here we are talking
about gig feeds. I wonder how much bandwidth
Once upon a time, Byron Hicks bhi...@ots.utsystem.edu said:
4k video feeds (the new High Def):
compressed: 1Gb/s
??
Current over-the-air HD (at a max of 1080i) is up to 19 megabits per
second (and most don't run it that high). Most cable systems compress
it more. 4k video is roughly 8
I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10 years from now...
100% of it (if you let us).
Cheers,
Michael Holstein
Cleveland State University
These were the numbers presented at an Internet2 meeting about the 4k
testing happening between UCSD and UW. I'm not sure what compression
algorithm they were using for the test.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Byron Hicks
If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used
dialup, you had suggested that ISPs would be putting in gigabit
services
to homes, people would have laughed. Yet today, here we are talking
about gig feeds. I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10
years from
Dan White wrote:
All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
is a good way to future proof your plant.
However, there are some advantages to GPON - particularly if you're
deploying high bandwidth video services. PON ONTs share 2.4Gb/s of
bandwidth downstream, which
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
is a good way to future proof your plant.
I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber.
Drive Slow,
Paul Wall
I'm wondering why despite all this comparatively magical speed
increase we have seen over the last decade, with 10 times better on
the horizon, we the customer ever get a 1:1 speed ratio?
--
Regards,
James ;)
Charles de Gaulle - The better I get to know men, the more I find
myself loving dogs.
On 01/12/09 14:33 -0500, Paul Wall wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
is a good way to future proof your plant.
I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber.
In
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 02:33:20PM -0500, Paul Wall wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
is a good way to future proof your plant.
I would argue that every customer is entitled to
You could deploy 2 or 3 strands and get more bandwidth to the customer,
using perhaps less expensive hardware, or you could maintain fewer
strands
in the ground and depend on equipment manufactures to maintain an
adequate
growth in bandwidth capabilities.
Neither approach is going to work
On 01/12/09 20:06, Byron Hicks wrote:
These were the numbers presented at an Internet2 meeting about the 4k
testing happening between UCSD and UW. I'm not sure what compression
algorithm they were using for the test.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/09/super_hi_vision.html
The
On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
is a good way to future proof your plant.
I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber.
actually, the killer here is PMTU... there is almost no way to
effectively utilize the BW when the MTU is locked to 1500 bytes.
and the reality, e.g. ntt b-flets, is often pppoe v4-only, which is
lower.
randy
Now just imagine that people inside the big firewall could tell you how they
engineered multi-gig FTTTVs.
At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the
physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States
is incredibly prohibitive of the advances
At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the
physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States
is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking about.
The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no
38 matches
Mail list logo
