Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

gt; *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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

.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 ch

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

ntelligent 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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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,

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

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

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

-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 u

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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.

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

RE: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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".

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

, 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

RE: Upstream bandwidth usage

ld 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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

>> 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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

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:

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

ct: 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

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

RE: Upstream bandwidth usage

-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 u

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

* 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

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

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage

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

Upstream bandwidth usage

OVBI: Average upstream data usage has nearly tripled since 2018 -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 207-602-1134 www.gwi.net