Hi Jay,
Le 29/01/2013 18:54, Jay Ashworth a écrit :
Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets smaller
players play.
Please let me present the french regulatory rules about that. It has
been an ongoing debate for a few years and is now almost stable.
French regulation
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
My point is that a conduit capable of storing additional 10 guage
copper can, instead, store 10 guage fiber.
Or, if you assume a conduit without any extra space, upgrading to
PON is also impossible.
Sure.
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Yes it does... It locks you into whatever is supported on the ring.
I don't know how I can explain this more plainly, I can (more accurately
have) taken a fiber build that was created as a ring spoke SONET system
and with
- Original Message -
From: Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr
Le 29/01/2013 18:54, Jay Ashworth a écrit :
Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets
smaller players play.
Please let me present the french regulatory rules about that. It has
been an ongoing
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Yes it does... It locks you into whatever is supported on the ring.
I don't know how I can explain this more plainly, I can (more accurately
have)
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Overlaid? Could you clarify that?
Sure, ring, hub spoke, home run, star these are all descriptions of the
physical architecture and many layer 2 technologies will happily use them
all including Ethernet. To use a specific
You *put active equipment out in the physical plant*.
I'm sure that there are some physical plant design criteria that permit
that decision, but mine isn't one of them, for reasons I believe I've made
fairly clear.
You disagree with some of those as well, of course, but you understand
On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Yes it does... It locks you into whatever is supported on the ring.
I don't know how
Scott Helms wrote:
They are not soo different, as long as you try to recover initial
cost not so quickly, which is why copper costs about $10/M or so.
I know several dozen companies that do this kind of construction and they
don't agree.
That is, they are trying to recover initial cost
-
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:17 PM
To: Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
note that a phone company often had
several central offices to cover their territory in the time before
there were remotes
Eric Wieling wrote:
In the past the ISP simply needed a nice big ATM pipe to the
ILEC for DSL service. The ILEC provided a PVC from the
customer endpoint to the ISP. As understand it this is no
longer the case, but only because of non-technical issues.
The non-technical issue is
.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:42 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Eric Wieling wrote:
In the past the ISP simply needed a nice big ATM pipe to the
ILEC for DSL service. The ILEC provided a PVC from the
customer endpoint to the ISP
Eric Wieling wrote:
I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other
ISPs an ATM PVC into their network.
Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.
ATM may not be the best technology to do this,
It is not.
but the basic concept is not bad.
It is not enough, even if you use
Scott Helms wrote:
Is it more expensive to home-run every home than to put splitters in the
neighborhood? Yes. Is it enough more expensive that the tradeoffs cannot be
overcome? I remain unconvinced.
This completely depends on the area and the goals of the network. In most
cases for muni
Owen,
I'm trimming this for my own sanity if I snip out something important
please let me know.
So long as you recognize that it's on a pair-by-pair basis end-to-end and
not expecting any mixing/sharing/etc. by the L1 infrastructure provider,
yes.
OK good, now we're speaking on the same
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
Is it more expensive to home-run every home than to put splitters in the
neighborhood? Yes. Is it enough more expensive that the tradeoffs
cannot be
overcome? I remain unconvinced.
On 13-02-04 16:04, Scott Helms wrote:
Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is
moot as well.
This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada
leaves indepdendant ISPs having to explain to their customers that they
can't fix certain
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so
this is moot as well.
This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada
leaves indepdendant ISPs having to explain to
Exactly!
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:
On 13-02-04 16:04, Scott Helms wrote:
Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this
is
moot as well.
This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada
leaves indepdendant ISPs having to explain to their customers that they
can't fix certain problems and that they must call the telco/cableco to
get it fixed. (in the case of a certain cable
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
So splitting responsabilities can be an annoyance if it becomes very
visible to the end users.
No different from competing ISPs using DSL or PON.
Sure it is: competing ISPs in a
Jay Ashworth wrote:
In a layer 1
scenario, it means ISP-1 has to physically go and deinstall their
CPE
and disconnect strand from their OLT, and then ISP-2 can do the
reverse
and reconnect evrything to provide services.
No. Just say optical MDF.
Doesn't preclude the need to swap
Scott Helms wrote:
Bot of you are wrong.
There is no reason fiber is more expensive than copper, which means SS
is cheap, as cheap as copper.
Copper isn't cheap, its just there already.
Unbundled copper costs about $10/M or so, which means SS fiber
can't be more expensive.
What is SS?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
Bot of you are wrong.
There is no reason fiber is more expensive than copper, which means SS
is cheap, as cheap as copper.
Copper isn't cheap, its just there already.
Unbundled
Really, so you think that the thickness of the cable has an impact on how
much it should cost? So, tell you what I'll exchange some nice thick
10 gauge copper wire for
correction---
14 gauge platinum, since its much thinner that ought to be a good trade
for you, right? ;)
--
Scott
Scott Helms wrote:
Unbundled copper costs about $10/M or so, which means SS fiber
can't be more expensive.
I'm not sure what you're trying to describe here, the cost of fiber from an
ongoing standpoint isn't strongly correlated to the architecture. Upgrades
to the fiber and adding service
On Feb 4, 2013, at 13:04 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
I'm trimming this for my own sanity if I snip out something important please
let me know.
So long as you recognize that it's on a pair-by-pair basis end-to-end and not
expecting any mixing/sharing/etc. by the L1
On Feb 4, 2013, at 13:17 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-02-04 16:04, Scott Helms wrote:
Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is
moot as well.
This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
Unbundled copper costs about $10/M or so, which means SS fiber
can't be more expensive.
I'm not sure what you're trying to describe here, the cost of fiber from
an
ongoing
That's where we disagree. The benefit is that:
1. It doesn't lock the entire area into a single current technology.
Neither does a ring architecture.
Yes it does... It locks you into whatever is supported on the ring.
I don't know how I can explain this more plainly, I can (more
On 13-02-04 19:48, Scott Helms wrote:
same trench IF you have buried cable and there is room. If you have aerial
plant (common in rural telco deployments, less common in muni networks) you
can also string your fiber on the same poles that you either own or have
attachment rights to but the
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:53:04PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
tightly defined area that is densely populated today. I'd also say that
this is not the normal muni network in the US today, since generally
speaking muni networks spring up where the local area is poorly served
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:04:43AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[...]
People are doing this, and it does work, it's just being done in
locations the big telcos and cablecos have written off...
To re-iterate this point, and get a note into the archives -- Muni
networks *can* work.
Idaho Falls, ID
Absolutely muni networks can work. I'm supporting ~14 right now with an
aggregate number of connections of around 40k (most are small). Having
said that from my view (I work with telco's, cable MSOs, muni, and other
network providers) muni networks fail more often than private networks.
This is
On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions for
problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective method
of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and
Keep in place, but I've worked with virtually all of the nationwide guys
and most of the regional ones and they don't as a rule want anything to do
with your fiber plant. Even in major metro areas selling dark fiber
doesn't have a huge uptake because if you the network owner didn't light it
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective
I answered (I think) your other points in the last email I wrote, but I
wanted to address these specifically.
I believe that Sweden operates largely on this model and that the Australia
NBN project does as well.
I would say that the Swedish model is a definite success.
Australia's NBN is
Scott -- you've brought up *great* info for this thread. We all know
that city/county/state/federal governments sometimes throw money away on
boondoggles (as fiber could become). You've been able to pull from your
direct experience to show how this is true.
I threw in Idaho Falls because I'm
In message camrdfrw6b3+spovj3w0xnvqkxgse6zb5hglicqx4kgzxpe7...@mail.gmail.com
, Scott Helms writes:
I answered (I think) your other points in the last email I wrote, but I
wanted to address these specifically.
I believe that Sweden operates largely on this model and that the Australia
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, John Osmon jos...@rigozsaurus.com wrote:
Scott -- you've brought up *great* info for this thread. We all know
that city/county/state/federal governments sometimes throw money away on
boondoggles (as fiber could become). You've been able to pull from your
Mark,
That's true but none (AFAIK) of those connections are being built by muni's
and all of the hand offs are done to the ISPs at layer 2.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
camrdfrw6b3+spovj3w0xnvqkxgse6zb5hglicqx4kgzxpe7...@mail.gmail.com
,
Thanks Scott. Even if you can't name names, having those points stored
somewhere searchable is going to help someone build a useful case when
deciding to deploy or not.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 04:55:41PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, John Osmon
On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
I think the
Eric,
Lol, yeah should have been Gig-E :)
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
brun...@nic-naa.netwrote:
On 2/3/13 12:33 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
PON is worse
in every performance related way to PON
typo???
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678)
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnk...@iname.comwrote:
Fletcher:
Many rural LECs are homerunning their fiber back to the CO, such that the
optical splitters are only in the CO. It gives them one management point,
the highest possible efficiency (you can maximize any
On Feb 3, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 2,
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas.
If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away
(52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are
2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km
On Feb 1, 2013, at 22:54, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If you have multicast and everyone is watching superbowl at same time,
you're talking up very little bandwidth on that 2.mumble GPON link.
Meh. Since everyone seems to want to be able to pause, rewind, etc.,
multicast doesn't tend
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
On 13-02-01 22:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal
greenfield
plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at
hand.
Not so
On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas.
If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away
(52km fiber pair length total),
Perhaps I missed a reference to receiver sensitivity in this thread. Since
the receiver optical-electric components are binary in nature, received
optical dB only has to be equal to or greater than the receiver's
sensitivity. Low or high dB received light produces the same quality at the
receiver.
On 13-02-02 10:36, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1 provider,
and putting splitters *in the outside plant* precludes any other type
of L1 service, *ever*. So that's a non-starter.
If you have 4 ISPs, why not put 4 splitters in the
Because telcos specifically want to /discourage/ competition.
You're perilously close to trolling, here, sir...
-jra
Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:
On 13-02-02 10:36, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1
provider,
and
Owen,
A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the
foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its simple
not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The optimal
open access network (with current or near future technology) is well
On Feb 2, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-02-02 10:36, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1 provider,
and putting splitters *in the outside plant* precludes any other type
of L1 service,
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the
foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its
simple
not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The
optimal
open
On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the
foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its simple
not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The
Owen,
Cross connecting at layer 1 is what I'm saying isn't feasible. If you want
to simply hand them a fiber then sell dark fiber or DWDM ports but trying
to create an architecture around PON or other splitters won't work because
PON splitters aren't compatible with other protocols.
On Sat,
It seems that you are (deliberately or otherwise) seriously misconstruing what
I am saying.
I'm saying that if you build an L1 dark fiber system as we have described, the
purchasers can use it to deploy Ethernet, PON, or any other technology.
I'm not saying it's how I would build out a PON
Owen,
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective
method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires
compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Owen
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective
method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires
Owen
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective
method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and
requires
compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Owen
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create
solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost
effective
method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive
OK, think about it like this. The most efficient topology to provide both
coverage and resiliency is a ring with nodes (shelves) from which end
users
are connected. That ring (usually Gig or 10Gig Ethernet today) needs to
be
connected to a central location so you can interconnect to
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 09:28:06PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
I'm not saying that you have to, but that's the most efficient and
resilient (both of those are important right?) way of arranging the gear.
The exact loop length from the shelves to the end users is up to you
Technically, any of the architectures espoused by some of the commentators
on this thread will work, and would at least be an order of magnitude
better than what is available in the local loop today.
One of the commentators, however, did underscore the biggest challenge by
far to national
If the goal is the minimize the capital outlay of a greenfield
build, your model can be more efficient, depending on the geography
covered. Basically you're assuming that the active electronics to
make a ring are cheaper than building high count fiber back to a
central point. There are
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:17:24PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably going
to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that you
didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:17:24PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably
going
to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably going
to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that you
didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth of homes and
9:53 PM
To: Jean-Francois Mezei
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:17 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
snip
If you have multicast and everyone is watching superbowl at same time,
you're talking up very little bandwidth on that 2
Owen,
You're basing your math off of some incorrect assumptions about PON. I'm
actually sympathetic to your goal, but it simply can't work the way you're
describing it in a PON network. Also, please don't base logic for open
access on meet me rooms, this works in colo spaces and carrier hotels
I disagree. Loss is loss, regardless of where the splitter is placed in the
equation. Distance x loss + splitter insertion loss = total loss for
purposes of link budget calculation.
The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not
technical.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:29
I should clarify: Distance x loss/km + splitter loss. = link loss.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
I disagree. Loss is loss, regardless of where the splitter is placed in
the equation. Distance x loss + splitter insertion loss = total loss for
Jason,
Loss is loss, but that's not all that we have to deal with here inside of
how PON works. I can tell you that not a single manufacturer I've worked
with says anything differently.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
I disagree. Loss is loss,
Actually, this is an issue… I should have seen it.
You have 3 loss components… Power out = (Power in - loss to splitter - splitter
loss) / nOut - loss-to-customer
So, if the loss to the splitter is 3db and you have 20db (effective 320db on a
16x split) loss on each customer link, that's
a
It's still a 23dB loss for each customer from the CO to the ONT.
I have an OLT that launches at +5dBm. At 1490nm, I should see about a .26dB
loss per km. My 1x32 splitter is going to add about 16dB more loss.
Assuming we ignore connector losses, and also assume that the customer is
10km away:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
It's still a 23dB loss for each customer from the CO to the ONT.
I have an OLT that launches at +5dBm. At 1490nm, I should see about a .26dB
loss per km. My 1x32 splitter is going to add about 16dB more loss. Assuming
On 13-02-01 16:03, Jason Baugher wrote:
The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not
technical.
It also has to do with existing fibre infrastructure. If a Telco has
already adopted a fibre to a node philosophy, then it has a;ready
installed a limited number of
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Nope The power going into each fiber out of the splitter is 1/16th
that of what went into the splitter.
... which is 12 dB loss.
Yes, your total in-line loss is still 10km, but you are forgetting
about the fact that you lost 15/16th of the power
Message-
From: Fletcher Kittredge [mailto:fkitt...@gwi.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:58 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If you have an MMR where all of the customers come together
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Feb 1 16:11:17
2013
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:59:54 -0800
To: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Jason
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk
3. no home run fibres means no competitors running their own
GPON or Ethernet. Why invest in making it easier for the
competition
Because I don't have any competitors; I *am the municipality*.
All the possible
In a message written on Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 03:29:32PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
You're basing your math off of some incorrect assumptions about PON. I'm
I'd like to know more about the PON limitations, while I understand
the 10,000 foot view, some of the rubber hitting the road issues
are a
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:17 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-02-01 16:03, Jason Baugher wrote:
The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not
technical.
It also has to do with existing fibre infrastructure. If a Telco has
already
) - 15 = -28.6
(5 - 2.34 - 16) - 15 - 0.26 = -28.6
-Hena
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Lähetetty: 2. helmikuuta 2013 0:00
Vastaanottaja: Jason Baugher
Kopio: NANOG
Aihe: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Jason
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
OK... Like Einstein, math is not my strong suit.
Unfortunately, I don't have his prowess with physics, either.
Owen
A bit here, a bit there... Hey, dB is a plural of Bits!
--
-george william herbert
Ok, serious question -
How is GPON's downstream AES encryption keying handled?
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
On 13-02-01 22:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal
greenfield
plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Not so irrelevant. If the municipality wishes to attract as many
competitive ISPs as possible, it
On Feb 1, 2013, at 21:22 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-02-01 22:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal
greenfield
plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Not so
In a message written on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:30:31PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
I would like to build an infrastrucutre that could last 50-100 years,
like the telephone twisted pair of the last century. The only tech I
can see that can do that is home run single mode fiber to the home.
TR-069 (part of which is CWMP) has been around a long long time and
Telcodria is well aware of it. The real problem is getting it
actually implemented well on CPE gear since the TM Forum didn't even
have a certification process until this year.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Jay Ashworth
Except for the fact that the people waiting for their gold shipment
expect it to be treated as gold and not kaolin or chickens. At the
end of the day the ISP is who gets called first and sometime they're
the only person an end user can reach. Try this one day if you're
ready for some frustration
Late to the conversation, but I'll chime in that we established a
model in Maine that is working pretty well, at least for middle-mile
fiber.
When we started building out MaineREN (our RON) we decided that having
the University own the fiber would tie it up in political red tape.
So much so that
On Jan 31, 2013, at 07:07 , Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Late to the conversation, but I'll chime in that we established a
model in Maine that is working pretty well, at least for middle-mile
fiber.
When we started building out MaineREN (our RON) we decided that having
the University
Owen,
The short answer is that you don't today and it will be a long time (if
ever) before its feasible. Europe is commonly held up as an example of an
area where open access works and if you stick to DSL networks that's true.
The problem is that the DSL networks (by and large) in Europe aren't
That's why I'm not advocating for open access, I'm advocating for L1/L2 provider
separation and a requirement that the L1 access itself be open.
I have yet to get a firm answer, but as I understand PON, it doesn't actually
matter
so much whether you put the splitter/combiner in an MMR or near
Owen,
You can't share access from one splitter to multiple OLTs so the location
of the splitter isn't important. AFAIK there is simply no concept for that
idea in any of the PON specs and its certainly not something that
Calix/Adtran/Zhone/Alcatel/$gear_maker are building right now. For that
101 - 200 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
