Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Nick Bogle]

The driving distance is 4 miles, we are leasing it from CenturyLink whose
headend maybe adds a mile or less, it's on the route and about half way
through. I made it 6 miles to be safe. We currently can pull a full 1.5Mbps
off of that T1 we run there so perhaps CenturyLink is repeating at their CO
and/or along the route?


On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dan Hollis  wrote:

> I doubt he will get >1.5mbps with those over a 6 mile long connection.
>
> I did a quick check and flowpoint 2200s seem to max out at 192kbps at 3
> miles.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Tim Pozar wrote:
>
> > For dry pairs, I have used Flowpoint SDSL modems (see attached).  I
> > picked these up for a sawbuck.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > On 12/12/18 5:00 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Nick Bogle wrote:
> >>> A quick question for you guys;
> >>>
> >>> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for
> phones)
> >>> to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We
> >>> currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't
> >>> cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
> >>> protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure
> (fiber
> >>> etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where point to point
> >>> wireless is
> >>> practical. We were thinking there is some sort of network extender that
> >>> uses some form of DSL for higher bandwidth capacity.
> >>>
> >>> Any suggestions?
> >>
> >> If this is telco provided dry pair then the distance is probably longer
> >> than 6 miles as the endpoints are probably tied together through a telco
> >> CO.
> >>
> >> I have not heard of any equipment which will work over a 6 mile pair any
> >> faster than you're getting with T1.
> >>
> >> You might consider setting up wireless repeaters to bridge where there
> >> is no direct LOS. Look at what the hamwan guys have done.
> >> http://hamwan.org/
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >
>

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Miles Fidelman]

It really does seem like repeaters are a necessity.  If he can put power 
down the wires, and get to them to install repeaters, that would seem 
the obvious way to go.


Miles


On 12/12/18 9:32 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:

I doubt he will get >1.5mbps with those over a 6 mile long connection.

I did a quick check and flowpoint 2200s seem to max out at 192kbps at 
3 miles.


-Dan

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Tim Pozar wrote:


For dry pairs, I have used Flowpoint SDSL modems (see attached).  I
picked these up for a sawbuck.

Tim

On 12/12/18 5:00 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Nick Bogle wrote:

A quick question for you guys;

If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for 
phones)

to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We
currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't
cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure 
(fiber

etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where point to point
wireless is
practical. We were thinking there is some sort of network extender 
that

uses some form of DSL for higher bandwidth capacity.

Any suggestions?


If this is telco provided dry pair then the distance is probably longer
than 6 miles as the endpoints are probably tied together through a 
telco

CO.

I have not heard of any equipment which will work over a 6 mile pair 
any

faster than you're getting with T1.

You might consider setting up wireless repeaters to bridge where there
is no direct LOS. Look at what the hamwan guys have done.
http://hamwan.org/

-Dan




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Dan Hollis]

I doubt he will get >1.5mbps with those over a 6 mile long connection.

I did a quick check and flowpoint 2200s seem to max out at 192kbps at 3 
miles.


-Dan

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Tim Pozar wrote:


For dry pairs, I have used Flowpoint SDSL modems (see attached).  I
picked these up for a sawbuck.

Tim

On 12/12/18 5:00 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Nick Bogle wrote:

A quick question for you guys;

If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones)
to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We
currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't
cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber
etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where point to point
wireless is
practical. We were thinking there is some sort of network extender that
uses some form of DSL for higher bandwidth capacity.

Any suggestions?


If this is telco provided dry pair then the distance is probably longer
than 6 miles as the endpoints are probably tied together through a telco
CO.

I have not heard of any equipment which will work over a 6 mile pair any
faster than you're getting with T1.

You might consider setting up wireless repeaters to bridge where there
is no direct LOS. Look at what the hamwan guys have done.
http://hamwan.org/

-Dan

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Dan Hollis]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Nick Bogle wrote:

A quick question for you guys;

If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones)
to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We
currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't
cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber
etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where point to point wireless is
practical. We were thinking there is some sort of network extender that
uses some form of DSL for higher bandwidth capacity.

Any suggestions?


If this is telco provided dry pair then the distance is probably longer 
than 6 miles as the endpoints are probably tied together through a telco 
CO.


I have not heard of any equipment which will work over a 6 mile pair any 
faster than you're getting with T1.


You might consider setting up wireless repeaters to bridge where there is 
no direct LOS. Look at what the hamwan guys have done. http://hamwan.org/


-Dan

RE: Extending network over a dry pair

[Marshall, Quincy]

I used to take “dry pairs” or “alarm circuits” and take SDSL modems to create 
high bandwidth ( up to 10Mbps, relative to the time) circuits. They were very 
reliable and incredibly cheap (@$22-88/mo). Regional bell at the time (or at 
least in my area) would make it difficult to order. Had to find the order codes.

Looks like these new units are updates to what was around, but they were very 
testy on line quality/distance. the first rule … ‘no load’. Suggest trying the 
water in the shallow end first.

LQ Marshall

From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+quincy.marshall=reged@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Jeremy Austin
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:38 PM
To: lath...@gmail.com
Cc: NANOG list 
Subject: Re: Extending network over a dry pair

For a comparison of distance to capacity on copper, see 
http://www.impulse-corp.co.uk/knowledge-base/transmission-distance-and-speed-differences-between-shdsl-and-vdsl2.htm

You might be able to pair bond -- if you had more than one pair.

If wireless isn't possible, you're likely needing satellite.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 12:35 PM Andrew Latham 
mailto:lath...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:27 PM Nick Bogle 
mailto:n...@bogle.se>> wrote:
A quick question for you guys;

If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones) to a 
remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We currently are 
just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't cutting it anymore. 
Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally protected wildlife preserve 
so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber etc) and it isn't in a 
geographical place where point to point wireless is practical. We were thinking 
there is some sort of network extender that uses some form of DSL for higher 
bandwidth capacity.

Any suggestions?

Look for an SHDSL Ethernet Extender

--
- Andrew "lathama" Latham -


--
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell
---
 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
 For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
---

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Jameson, Daniel]

Look at a Hatteras hn400 and lpu  You can get about 5mbs/pair using g.shdsl.  
pairs can be bonded to add capacity (assuming at least 2 pair for t-1).  The 
repeaters fit in a standard 248 closure.

From: NANOG  on behalf of Baldur Norddahl 

Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:19:21 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Extending network over a dry pair

Rent a cable plow and make a quick run of fiber during the night. Nobody will 
notice.

:-)

6 miles is too far to get any speed on a phone line.

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Baldur Norddahl]

Rent a cable plow and make a quick run of fiber during the night. Nobody
will notice.

:-)

6 miles is too far to get any speed on a phone line.

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Mel Beckman]

I’ve used the Patton copper link devices such as the one you mentioned Nick, 
and they work very well within the parameters they cover. Their tech-support is 
excellent also.

 -mel beckman

On Dec 12, 2018, at 1:44 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

Something LRE possibly.  Could just do VDSL.

Are you just looking at more than 1544 kbps or is there a particular threshold 
you need to meet (to support a camera, etc)?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:26 PM Nick Bogle 
mailto:n...@bogle.se>> wrote:
A quick question for you guys;

If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones) to a 
remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We currently are 
just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't cutting it anymore. 
Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally protected wildlife preserve 
so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber etc) and it isn't in a 
geographical place where point to point wireless is practical. We were thinking 
there is some sort of network extender that uses some form of DSL for higher 
bandwidth capacity.

Any suggestions?

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Shawn L via NANOG]

Actellis also makes some ethernet over dry pair gear.  The only issue is that 
they require repeaters like a T1 (different spacing though).  I'm guessing if 
you're doing T1 at that distance you already have repeater housings in the 
field at least.
 
 


-Original Message-
From: "Alfie Pates" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:42pm
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Extending network over a dry pair



Six miles is probably pushing it, but Proscend make some interesting Long-Range 
Ethernet SFP transciever which are VDSL based. They're horrendously documented 
and they draw *way* more power than the SFP specification allows.
They also make a version which is design to terminate VDSL broadband circuits - 
A couple of those found their way to my desk recently and it turns out that 
despite the horrendous documentation and sightly scary heat output (they come 
with a little paper note in the box which says something along the lines of 
"WARNING! MODULE GETS HOT - DO NOT TOUCH DURING OPERATION."), they do generally 
Just Work!
~a
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, at 9:25 PM, Nick Bogle wrote:
A quick question for you guys; 
If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones) to a 
remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We currently are 
just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't cutting it anymore. 
Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally protected wildlife preserve 
so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber etc) and it isn't in a 
geographical place where point to point wireless is practical. We were thinking 
there is some sort of network extender that uses some form of DSL for higher 
bandwidth capacity. 
Any suggestions?

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:25 PM Nick Bogle  wrote:
> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones)
> to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use?
> We currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps
> isn't cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
> protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure
> (fiber etc)

Also, if there's power and dry pair copper to the site then there are
utility poles to the site that are grandfathered under whatever the
current regulations are. Since poles rot and trees take down wires
there must also be provisions for maintaining them. A good lawyer can
probably figure out how you can add a cable to those existing poles
without running afoul of the regs, particularly since its in service
to a research site.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:52 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> YOUR use of PON makes reasonably good sense.
>
>
Features such as battery backup and ISDN is made for the explicit purpose
of office buildings, not residential use. The flexibility that we enjoy
will also work for office buildings. I do not disagree that in a office
building the distances are short and you can get enough flexibility just by
adding sufficient amount of dark fiber, and therefore a point to point
network would work just as well. But what he got is a GPON network, so what
else would also work is moot. Nobody has yet to come forth with a real
problem with the GPON network, that would require to start all over with
another approach.


>
> > One advantage of a fiber to the desktop solution is that you have
> >fiber to every room. You just move a drop cable from the splitter
> >and to a pair of backbone fibers.
>
> Did it read to you like Nick's installation had drop cables of
> non-trivial length from easily accessed splitters? It didn't read that
> way to me.
>

The length of the drop cables is irrelevant. You are not going to move the
cables physically. You will unplug the drop cable from the splitter and
connect it to the backbone cable. Both splitter and backbone cables will
have APC/LC connectors in a small cabinet somewhere. You can literally
convert a drop cable from being part of the GPON system, to being a point
to point anywhere within a few minutes just by moving a few connectors.


>
>
> >> I would demand the creation of comms closets and risers before the
> >> building opened and I'd threaten to quit if they weren't. At least
> >> then the inevitable modifications can be structured and planned
> >> instead of turning in to an ad-hoc mess.
> >
> > This is out of line IMHO. Hopefully they did add in extra conduits so
> > you could do some special cable runs (including some copper and
> > coax), if needed.
>
> Nick said they did not create comms closets or a comms riser.
>

He did not say there was zero space to run any cables at all. Fiber does
need very little space. And if all you need is that coax for the AV group,
that also would not need much space. If you wanted to rewire the whole
thing for copper, that would require a lot of space. Rewiring for point to
point fiber would require very little space, if any at all (we do not know
how much dark fiber they already have).


> If they did the fiber build in anything reasonably close to the
> recommended way there would be ducts connected to comms closets
> holding the splitters. He's already told us there are no comms
> closets.
>
>
No in a fiber build you would not bother with comms closets. For copper you
need to ensure no run is longer than 100 meters, and therefore you have
risers and comm closets relatively close spaced. In a fiber roll out there
is no point. Even with point to point ethernet over fiber, you would just
have one closet for the whole building in the basement somewhere. Or even
in a different building. The architect is going to want that space for
something else in a heartbeat. This more than the saved cost could be the
real reason for why they did it.

This does not mean there will be zero space for running cables. You still
have lots of stuff that needs to cross floors (power, water, sewer, fiber
etc).

Regards,

Baldur

RE: Extending network over a dry pair

[Chris Kimball]

HA! But the question is; does it pass?

^^^ and that was my official 'first post' beware my linked in requests now😊

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Phillip Carroll
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:53 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Extending network over a dry pair

Whenever I have a dry pair I use fluke lube.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Blake Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:40 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Extending network over a dry pair



Nick Bogle wrote on 12/12/2018 3:25 PM:
> A quick question for you guys;
>
> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for
> phones) to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you
> use? We currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but
> 1.5Mbps isn't cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site
> on a federally protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new
> infrastructure (fiber etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where
> point to point wireless is practical. We were thinking there is some
> sort of network extender that uses some form of DSL for higher
> bandwidth capacity.
>
> Any suggestions?

Blackbox makes a variety of different types of " network extenders" (aka
bridges) -
https://www.blackbox.com/en-us/products/black-box-brand-products/networking/extenders

As others have said, 6 miles might limit your bandwidth capacity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - -

The information contained in this electronic message may be confidential, and 
the message is for the use of intended recipients only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, do not disseminate, copy, or disclose this communication or 
its contents. If you have received this communication in error, please 
immediately notify me by replying to the email or call MIS Alliance at 
617-500-1700 and permanently delete this communication.

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:25 PM Nick Bogle  wrote:
> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones)
> to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use?
> We currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps
> isn't cutting it anymore.

Hi Nick,

Where are the repeaters? Even using HDSL or VDSL, 1.5mbps T1s don't
generally extend 30,000 feet without repeaters.

Depending on how far apart the repeaters are and whether you can
substitute other equipment, you may have lots of options or none at
all.

Also, tell us more about the terrain. Just because you don't think
it's suitable for ptp wireless doesn't necessarily mean that wireless
can't usefully play a role in a hybrid solution.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[K. Scott Helms]

I'd say that any carrier grade GPON gear is way overkill for a LAN and
you're going to have to run single mode fiber to use the consumer grade
ONTs which is a big extra expense as few structured wiring companies do
single mode.  Second, Dasan Zhone is one of the vendors I'd absolutely
avoid and I've worked on numerous GPON OLTs (Adtran TA5000/3000, Calix C7,
E7, E3, and others).  Their configuration is problematic as you've found
out and they have a poor track record in security.

https://www.securityweek.com/over-million-dasan-routers-vulnerable-remote-hacking

Using third party optics is (with all the GPON vendors) a complete crap
shoot.  Sometimes they will work and suddenly a firmware update from the
OLT vendor comes along and they no longer work.  Other times they don't
work at all or are very unreliable.

GPON is a standard, but in North America the vendors have largely not been
forced to do interoperability and it's very lacking.  Compare that to
Europe where the Fritzbox is one of the most popular ONTs.

Finally, as many have said I cannot see any scenario where building GPON
will be as cost effective, reliable, or performant as simply building out a
switched Ethernet network over fiber.


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:53 AM Nick Bogle  wrote:

> Hello fellow NANOG members :)
>
> Let me start with a little bit of background, my day job is a Network
> Engineer for a local university where we have primarily a Cisco environment
> from phones to switching to routing, etc. Before my time, we hired a
> contractor to design a GPON LAN system for a new building as a cost saving
> measure (though I am not sure how successful that was).
>
> Either way, the contractor is about to hand the system off to us, and we
> have gone through the training and such, and I feel confident in my ability
> to manage the system, but we have a few questions that the manufacturer of
> our equipment and our contractor didn't really want to answer. We are
> currently using a Dasan Zhone MXK-F1419 with several different downstream
> ONT models (all Zhone).
>
> -We would like to consider use of 3rd party GPON B+ Optics on the
> linecards to add redundancy to the splitter (as the cost of 1st party are
> too high). Does anyone have experience with 3rd party
> vendors/compatibility/stability issues? We were told they theoretically
> should work and just throw a log event, but it hasn't been tested. If so,
> what vendors would you recommend? So far all we've really seen are Ubiquiti
> and Fiberstore optics.
>
> -As GPON is a standard itself, I'm aware interoperability between OLT and
> ONT vendors is heavily limited.. Does anyone have any experience using say,
> Zhone ONT's with a different model OLT, or Zhone ONT's with a different
> model OLT? I've heard word that Zhone ONT's may be able to work with Nokia
> OLT's but it's technically not supported.
>
> -We've already experienced some pretty big stability issues (have replaced
> 1 line card 5 times..), our contractor is saying it's just because we were
> a pretty early adopter of this line and that they've fixed it and fixed
> internal policies to add additional QA and testing before shipping to
> customers. Does anyone have any experience with working with Zhone and
> their overall stability of components?
>
> - Any other thoughts/gotchas/advice for deploying a GPON environment in a
> corporate LAN? (or about deploying a Zhone solution) It's pretty service
> provider oriented, and is incredible noticeable in the CLI.
>
> -Is anyone familiar with Zhone CLI? The apparent lack of any "show"
> configuration commands is infuriating.
>
>
> Feel free to contact me offlist if you have any pertinent info that you
> don't want on the list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick Bogle
> n...@bogle.se
>

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[Baldur Norddahl]

Many 1U GPON OLT switches have 16 OLT ports and each port can have up to
128 ONT. This gives you 2048 ONT in one unit for the OLT. Typical power is
less than 200 watt.

Each ONT has 4 or more ethernet ports. So multiply with that. You could
have a small campus on just one unit of OLT. On the other hand, I am not
sure you will actually save any power as the ONTs also need power and they
are many.

Regards
Baldur


ons. 12. dec. 2018 22.56 skrev Mike Hammett :

> Lower power consumption of electronics and the fact that most (not all)
> deployments don't need more than 10 megs committed to them, so share a big
> pipe and burst away. 1U can have 256 endpoints easily and consume less
> power than a regular switch.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Alfie Pates" 
> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:34:29 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions
>
> The discussion was regarding an in-building LAN - residential access
> networks/WANs are a wholly different beast and GPON is fantastically
> suitable for that particular problem.
>
> There is, however, a reason that a lot of new mixed-use (business &&
> residential) WAN fibre deployments end up building a home-run dark fibre
> network for business use and overbuilding with GPON for residential use -
> the 1-1 mapping of end users to patch points/flexibility points makes for a
> vastly more future-proof network.
>
> I think we often underestimate just how long the networks we install stick
> around. I ordered a 10Gbit/s service not too long ago over the very same
> fibre that was used to serve 2Mbit/s connections in the mid 90s: I'm not
> kidding, the fibre was physically disconnected from an old, derelict
> 2Mbit/s SDH network termination and plugged into a brand new 10Gbit/s EDD.
>
> GPON is cool, definitely - I've worked on very large scale GPON
> deployments before, and it is definitely a very useful technology that
> allows us to affordably deploy high-bandwidth consumer and small-business
> connectivity.
>
> However - it is a compromise, and I don't think you're gaining anything by
> running GPON versus the tried-and-tested method of active, switch-based
> aggregation, especially compared to the sacrifices you make deploying a
> passively-aggregated network.
>
> As I said before - I wouldn't stake my reputation on it.
>
> ~A
>
>

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 12/12/2018 02:40 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:

As others have said, 6 miles might limit your bandwidth capacity.


Are there other places along the path that you could split break the 6 
miles into multiple shorter links and regenerate the signal?




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

RE: Extending network over a dry pair

[Phillip Carroll]

Whenever I have a dry pair I use fluke lube. 

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Blake Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:40 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Extending network over a dry pair



Nick Bogle wrote on 12/12/2018 3:25 PM:
> A quick question for you guys;
>
> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for
> phones) to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you 
> use? We currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 
> 1.5Mbps isn't cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site 
> on a federally protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new 
> infrastructure (fiber etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where 
> point to point wireless is practical. We were thinking there is some 
> sort of network extender that uses some form of DSL for higher 
> bandwidth capacity.
>
> Any suggestions?

Blackbox makes a variety of different types of " network extenders" (aka
bridges) -
https://www.blackbox.com/en-us/products/black-box-brand-products/networking/extenders

As others have said, 6 miles might limit your bandwidth capacity.

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 12:09 PM Baldur Norddahl
 wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:51 PM William Herrin  wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:47 PM Baldur Norddahl
>>  wrote:
>> > Compared to the traditional approach, you will only have one centralized
>> > GPON switch to manage. All the small ONT switches are managed through
>> > this. Complaints about the interface is vendor specific. Because there is 
>> > only
>> > one centralized switch, it would be fairly cheap to switch vendor. Much 
>> > cheaper
>> > than to rewire with copper in any case.
>>
>> Except you won't have one central GPON switch because LANs change
>> incrementally.
>
> In my experience, a PON network is extremely flexible. Our FTTH network [...]

Exactly, your FTTH network. PON wouldn't exist if it didn't have
valuable use scenarios. Like an FTTH network. I was discussing Nick's
scenario which is NOT an FTTH network. It's an in-building LAN with
fiber runs measuring in tens or hundreds of feet (not miles) behind
walls (not up on accessible utilities poles or down in accessible
conduits) with screwy in-wall ONTs (not the user's responsibility to
power) stuffed in a space that doesn't dissipate heat well.

YOUR use of PON makes reasonably good sense.


> One advantage of a fiber to the desktop solution is that you have
>fiber to every room. You just move a drop cable from the splitter
>and to a pair of backbone fibers.

Did it read to you like Nick's installation had drop cables of
non-trivial length from easily accessed splitters? It didn't read that
way to me.


>> I would demand the creation of comms closets and risers before the
>> building opened and I'd threaten to quit if they weren't. At least
>> then the inevitable modifications can be structured and planned
>> instead of turning in to an ad-hoc mess.
>
> This is out of line IMHO. Hopefully they did add in extra conduits so
> you could do some special cable runs (including some copper and
> coax), if needed.

Nick said they did not create comms closets or a comms riser.

> But if they did not, it would be the responsibility
> of management, not yours. It also has nothing to do with fiber
> nor GPON. Plenty of copper builds have a severe lack of space
> for future proving.

To an internal user, internal IT *is* part of the management complex.
They're the ones who get to choose your password length and VPN rules.
They make choices which are enforced on you, hence management.


> If they did the fiber build in the recommended way, there will
> be ducts prepared for fiber blowing, so one quickly can add more fiber 
> cabling.

If they did the fiber build in anything reasonably close to the
recommended way there would be ducts connected to comms closets
holding the splitters. He's already told us there are no comms
closets.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[Mike Hammett]

Lower power consumption of electronics and the fact that most (not all) 
deployments don't need more than 10 megs committed to them, so share a big pipe 
and burst away. 1U can have 256 endpoints easily and consume less power than a 
regular switch. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Alfie Pates"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:34:29 PM 
Subject: Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions 


The discussion was regarding an in-building LAN - residential access 
networks/WANs are a wholly different beast and GPON is fantastically suitable 
for that particular problem. 



There is, however, a reason that a lot of new mixed-use (business && 
residential) WAN fibre deployments end up building a home-run dark fibre 
network for business use and overbuilding with GPON for residential use - the 
1-1 mapping of end users to patch points/flexibility points makes for a vastly 
more future-proof network. 



I think we often underestimate just how long the networks we install stick 
around. I ordered a 10Gbit/s service not too long ago over the very same fibre 
that was used to serve 2Mbit/s connections in the mid 90s: I'm not kidding, the 
fibre was physically disconnected from an old, derelict 2Mbit/s SDH network 
termination and plugged into a brand new 10Gbit/s EDD. 



GPON is cool, definitely - I've worked on very large scale GPON deployments 
before, and it is definitely a very useful technology that allows us to 
affordably deploy high-bandwidth consumer and small-business connectivity. 



However - it is a compromise, and I don't think you're gaining anything by 
running GPON versus the tried-and-tested method of active, switch-based 
aggregation, especially compared to the sacrifices you make deploying a 
passively-aggregated network. 



As I said before - I wouldn't stake my reputation on it. 



~A 

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Alfie Pates]

Six miles is probably pushing it, but Proscend make some interesting Long-
Range Ethernet SFP transciever which are VDSL based. They're
horrendously documented and they draw *way* more power than the SFP
specification allows.
They also make a version which is design to terminate VDSL broadband
circuits - A couple of those found their way to my desk recently and it
turns out that despite the horrendous documentation and sightly scary
heat output (they come with a little paper note in the box which says
something along the lines of "WARNING! MODULE GETS HOT - DO NOT TOUCH
DURING OPERATION."), they do generally Just Work!
~a

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, at 9:25 PM, Nick Bogle wrote:
> A quick question for you guys; 
> 
> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for
> phones) to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you
> use? We currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but
> 1.5Mbps isn't cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site
> on a federally protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new
> infrastructure (fiber etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where
> point to point wireless is practical. We were thinking there is some
> sort of network extender that uses some form of DSL for higher
> bandwidth capacity.> 
> Any suggestions?

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Blake Hudson]

Nick Bogle wrote on 12/12/2018 3:25 PM:

A quick question for you guys;

If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for 
phones) to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you 
use? We currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 
1.5Mbps isn't cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site 
on a federally protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new 
infrastructure (fiber etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where 
point to point wireless is practical. We were thinking there is some 
sort of network extender that uses some form of DSL for higher 
bandwidth capacity.


Any suggestions?


Blackbox makes a variety of different types of " network extenders" (aka 
bridges) - 
https://www.blackbox.com/en-us/products/black-box-brand-products/networking/extenders


As others have said, 6 miles might limit your bandwidth capacity.

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Josh Luthman]

Something LRE possibly.  Could just do VDSL.

Are you just looking at more than 1544 kbps or is there a particular
threshold you need to meet (to support a camera, etc)?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:26 PM Nick Bogle  wrote:

> A quick question for you guys;
>
> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones)
> to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We
> currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't
> cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
> protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber
> etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where point to point wireless is
> practical. We were thinking there is some sort of network extender that
> uses some form of DSL for higher bandwidth capacity.
>
> Any suggestions?
>

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Jeremy Austin]

For a comparison of distance to capacity on copper, see
http://www.impulse-corp.co.uk/knowledge-base/transmission-distance-and-speed-differences-between-shdsl-and-vdsl2.htm

You might be able to pair bond -- if you had more than one pair.

If wireless isn't possible, you're likely needing satellite.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 12:35 PM Andrew Latham  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:27 PM Nick Bogle  wrote:
>
>> A quick question for you guys;
>>
>> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones)
>> to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We
>> currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't
>> cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
>> protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber
>> etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where point to point wireless is
>> practical. We were thinking there is some sort of network extender that
>> uses some form of DSL for higher bandwidth capacity.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>
> Look for an SHDSL Ethernet Extender
>
> --
> - Andrew "lathama" Latham -
>


-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[Alfie Pates]

The discussion was regarding an in-building LAN - residential access
networks/WANs are a wholly different beast and GPON is fantastically
suitable for that particular problem.
There is, however, a reason that a lot of new mixed-use (business &&
residential) WAN fibre deployments end up building a home-run dark fibre
network for business use and overbuilding with GPON for residential use
- the 1-1 mapping of end users to patch points/flexibility points makes
for a vastly more future-proof network.
I think we often underestimate just how long the networks we install
stick around. I ordered a 10Gbit/s service not too long ago over the
very same fibre that was used to serve 2Mbit/s connections in the mid
90s: I'm not kidding, the fibre was physically disconnected from an old,
derelict 2Mbit/s SDH network termination and plugged into a brand new
10Gbit/s EDD.
GPON is cool, definitely - I've worked on very large scale GPON
deployments before, and it is definitely a very useful technology that
allows us to affordably deploy high-bandwidth consumer and small-
business connectivity.
However - it is a compromise, and I don't think you're gaining anything
by running GPON versus the tried-and-tested method of active, switch-
based aggregation, especially compared to the sacrifices you make
deploying a passively-aggregated network.
As I said before - I wouldn't stake my reputation on it. 

~A

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Ray Van Dolson]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:25:32PM -0800, Nick Bogle wrote:
> A quick question for you guys; 
> 
> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for
> phones) to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you
> use? We currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but
> 1.5Mbps isn't cutting it anymore.  Unfortunately it's a research site
> on a federally protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new
> infrastructure (fiber etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where
> point to point wireless is practical. We were thinking there is some
> sort of network extender that uses some form of DSL for higher
> bandwidth capacity. 
> 
> Any suggestions?

There's this[1], but only rated at one mile.

This one[2] claims it can support 15.3Mbps over a single pair.

Ray

[1] 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Tupavco-2DEthernet-2DExtender-2DKit-2DRepeater-2DVDSL_dp_B01BOD8C9W_ref-3Dpd-5Fcp-5F147-5F2-3Fpd-5Frd-5Fw-3DjJF6B-26pf-5Frd-5Fp-3Def4dc990-2Da9ca-2D4945-2Dae0b-2Df8d549198ed6-26pf-5Frd-5Fr-3DYNZSNN4KVFDD0D7F28BC-26pd-5Frd-5Fr-3Dff2a9a7f-2Dfe54-2D11e8-2D9eb5-2Dcbf5e1b9be77-26pd-5Frd-5Fwg-3DYAFyN-26pd-5Frd-5Fi-3DB01BOD8C9W-26psc-3D1-26refRID-3DYNZSNN4KVFDD0D7F28BC&d=DwIBAg&c=n6-cguzQvX_tUIrZOS_4Og&r=r4NBNYp4yEcJxC11Po5I-w&m=TbF7NHyAPYAnOTcN0mP5L8Mx9bruJ3BQiMGiRuuEjag&s=1uB8i1QuuStq_4H-v8E2AvAuFwvzubQ5sfUHK81L598&e=
[2] 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.patton.com_ethernet-2Dextender_cl1314mde_&d=DwIBAg&c=n6-cguzQvX_tUIrZOS_4Og&r=r4NBNYp4yEcJxC11Po5I-w&m=TbF7NHyAPYAnOTcN0mP5L8Mx9bruJ3BQiMGiRuuEjag&s=giCSQ1Y-mYPf-JQmTFLfqlg34eDZuCD87ScHf0sOR20&e=

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Andrew Latham]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:27 PM Nick Bogle  wrote:

> A quick question for you guys;
>
> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones)
> to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We
> currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't
> cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
> protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber
> etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where point to point wireless is
> practical. We were thinking there is some sort of network extender that
> uses some form of DSL for higher bandwidth capacity.
>
> Any suggestions?
>

Look for an SHDSL Ethernet Extender

-- 
- Andrew "lathama" Latham -

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[Stephen Satchell]

On 12/12/18 10:51 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> The AV lab gets screwed. You're running the coax they need through the
> noisy electrical riser because you didn't build dedicated comms risers
> and closets. Naturally nobody checked with them so you don't yet
> realize they can't do what they need to do with video over IP
> equipment.

There are double-shield coax solutions for noisy risers.  The outer
shield is grounded to the conduit, while the inner shield is grounded at
the source equipment.  One has to be sure that the voltage differential
between shields is kept as low as practical, which means paying
attention to grounding for the conduit AND equipment.

RE: Looking for Telecom Lawyer

[Travis Garrison]

Thanks everyone that replied, we have quite a list now to dig through.

Thanks
Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Travis Garrison
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 8:08 AM
To: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: Looking for Telecom Lawyer

We are looking for a Telecom Lawyer to help us be a CLEC in the Arkansas, 
Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Oklahoma areas. Also we are looking to setup 
agreements for peering, transport and resell for ATT and CenturyLink in the 
same areas and Missouri. We are already a CLEC in Missouri.

Thank you
Travis

Extending network over a dry pair

[Nick Bogle]

A quick question for you guys;

If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones)
to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We
currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't
cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber
etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where point to point wireless is
practical. We were thinking there is some sort of network extender that
uses some form of DSL for higher bandwidth capacity.

Any suggestions?

Re: Looking for Telecom Lawyer

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

> On Dec 12, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Travis Garrison  wrote:
> 
> We are looking for a Telecom Lawyer to help us be a CLEC in the Arkansas, 
> Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Oklahoma areas. Also we are looking to setup 
> agreements for peering, transport and resell for ATT and CenturyLink in the 
> same areas and Missouri. We are already a CLEC in Missouri.
>  

Travis, contact Laura Miller:

https://scarincihollenbeck.com/attorneys/laura-m-miller/

Tell her that Crystal Prais (a former colleague) referred you.   Crystal says 
that she is, and I quote, "fantastic".

Anne

---

Anne P. Mitchell, 
Attorney at Law
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center
California Bar Association
Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Colorado Cyber Committee
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:51 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:47 PM Baldur Norddahl
>  wrote:
> > Compared to the traditional approach, you will only have one centralized
> > GPON switch to manage. All the small ONT switches are managed through
> > this. Complaints about the interface is vendor specific. Because there
> is only
> > one centralized switch, it would be fairly cheap to switch vendor. Much
> cheaper
> > than to rewire with copper in any case.
>
> Except you won't have one central GPON switch because LANs change
> incrementally.
>

In my experience, a PON network is extremely flexible. Our FTTH network is
ever expanding and there is no master plan. Whenever people in existing
areas decide to buy our product or whenever people in a new area decides to
take a vote to get us in their area, the network will expand as needed.
Often we will discover that we could not make a planed crossing because of
something in the ground, but we can just change plans and do it another
place. We have a competitor that decided to use p2p (point to point
ethernet over fiber) instead and I have watched how they are struggling
because they had to plan everything from the outset, and we didn't. The
reason being that we use very little fiber for our backbone and can afford
to change plans constantly. They need to backhaul hundreds or thousands of
fiber strands to the central point, where they have the switches.


>
> That throwback in office 412 with the fax machine? Can't simply buy
> him a pots line. You get to futz with fax over the converged phone
> system.
>

GPON is actually ATM and will provide hard realtime bandwidth guarantees.
ISDN delivery over GPON is part of the standard. You will reserve 2x64
Kbit/s channels and GPON guarantees that will always be 100% available with
no dropped frames and no jitter. You can do fax, modems, anything that the
public phone service will carry over ATM.

I have not personally tried this out as fax and modems are completely dead
in my part of the world and nobody cares. But I have had a ONT (from Zhone
no less) with ISDN ports (not POTS) and thought they are crazy.


>
> Speaking of the converged phone system, you're now committed to VoIP
> on a VLAN. When you decide you want to switch to a physically
> separated network for the phones, well, that's too bad because your
> cabling infrastructure doesn't make that possible.
>

Nothing stops you from deploying two independent GPON networks, one for
ISDN service and the other for data service. Typically the drop cables will
be at least 2 fibers (GPON runs on a single fiber) so you would not need to
change anything. In my example the backbone would need a maximum of 7
fibers. With a duplicated GPON network, that would be 14 fibers in the
backbone.

Personally I think duplicated networks are silly. But who am I to decide?


>
> The AV lab gets screwed. You're running the coax they need through the
> noisy electrical riser because you didn't build dedicated comms risers
> and closets. Naturally nobody checked with them so you don't yet
> realize they can't do what they need to do with video over IP
> equipment.
>

Fiber will transmit anything that goes on coax as analog signals. Typically
on 1550 nm. The converters are dead cheap and are purely analog devices.

This is how we deliver TV on a FTTH GPON network. GPON uses 1310 nm for
upstream data, 1490 for downstream data and 1550 nm for analog TV. When I
say analog TV that is really DVB digital signal these days, but the
equipment does not know any of that and just transmits it as an analog
signal. Many GPON ONT for residential use come with a coax TV out port that
can be turned on and off remotely, so the ISP can control TV delivery. Some
also have build in filters that can be remote controlled, so you can have
multiple TV packages using the usual system of filtering frequencies on the
coax.


>
> And what will you do in 5 years when they want the computer lab in 204
> upgraded to 100Gig? Maybe run some fiber all the way back to the
> campus head end because as expensive as that is, it's still cheaper
> than replacing the OLT with 100-gig capable equipment and then
> replacing all the ONTs in the building because oops, there's no 100
> gig OLT compatible with the old ONTs and you'd have to take the
> building down for a week to forklift-upgrade the whole mess.
>

One advantage of a fiber to the desktop solution is that you have fiber to
every room. You just move a drop cable from the splitter and to a pair of
backbone fibers. With this you can get a dedicated connection from any room
to any other room including back to your data center. Yes you will have
extra dark fibers available, anything else would be stupid.


>
> Folks have advised Nick rip it out now because they foresee the
> slow-motion train wreck on its way. That may be extreme, but certainly
> he should take immediate action to preserve his options. For example,
> I would demand the creation of comms 

Re: Looking for an compromise of an enterprise network from a mobile device

[Allan Liska]

It is an older example, but the DressCode was able to infect enterprise 
networks from compromised Android phones and, according to Trend Micro it did:

[https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/dresscode-potential-impact-enterprises/](https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/dresscode-potential-impact-enterprises/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Anti-MalwareBlog+%28Trendlabs+Security+Intelligence+Blog%29)

allan

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 2:51 PM, Christopher J. Wolff 
 wrote:

> Hello NANOG,
>
> I’m working on a presentation and need your help.  I’m looking for a case 
> study where a compromised iOS, Android or other mobile device was utilized as 
> a backdoor to compromise an enterprise network.  Any help will be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christopher

Looking for an compromise of an enterprise network from a mobile device

[Christopher J. Wolff]

Hello NANOG,

I'm working on a presentation and need your help.  I'm looking for a case study 
where a compromised iOS, Android or other mobile device was utilized as a 
backdoor to compromise an enterprise network.  Any help will be appreciated.

Regards,
Christopher

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:47 PM Baldur Norddahl
 wrote:
> Compared to the traditional approach, you will only have one centralized
> GPON switch to manage. All the small ONT switches are managed through
> this. Complaints about the interface is vendor specific. Because there is only
> one centralized switch, it would be fairly cheap to switch vendor. Much 
> cheaper
> than to rewire with copper in any case.

Except you won't have one central GPON switch because LANs change
incrementally.

That throwback in office 412 with the fax machine? Can't simply buy
him a pots line. You get to futz with fax over the converged phone
system.

Speaking of the converged phone system, you're now committed to VoIP
on a VLAN. When you decide you want to switch to a physically
separated network for the phones, well, that's too bad because your
cabling infrastructure doesn't make that possible.

The AV lab gets screwed. You're running the coax they need through the
noisy electrical riser because you didn't build dedicated comms risers
and closets. Naturally nobody checked with them so you don't yet
realize they can't do what they need to do with video over IP
equipment.

And what will you do in 5 years when they want the computer lab in 204
upgraded to 100Gig? Maybe run some fiber all the way back to the
campus head end because as expensive as that is, it's still cheaper
than replacing the OLT with 100-gig capable equipment and then
replacing all the ONTs in the building because oops, there's no 100
gig OLT compatible with the old ONTs and you'd have to take the
building down for a week to forklift-upgrade the whole mess.

Folks have advised Nick rip it out now because they foresee the
slow-motion train wreck on its way. That may be extreme, but certainly
he should take immediate action to preserve his options. For example,
I would demand the creation of comms closets and risers before the
building opened and I'd threaten to quit if they weren't. At least
then the inevitable modifications can be structured and planned
instead of turning in to an ad-hoc mess.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

RE: Looking for Telecom Lawyer

[Phillip Carroll]

https://telecomlawyer.net/
https://commlawgroup.com/attorneys/jonathan-s-marashlian/
http://www.telecomlawattorney.com/
http://telecomlawfirm.com/
http://www.telecomlawyers.com/


From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Travis Garrison
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 8:08 AM
To: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: Looking for Telecom Lawyer

We are looking for a Telecom Lawyer to help us be a CLEC in the Arkansas, 
Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Oklahoma areas. Also we are looking to setup 
agreements for peering, transport and resell for ATT and CenturyLink in the 
same areas and Missouri. We are already a CLEC in Missouri.

Thank you
Travis

Looking for Telecom Lawyer

[Travis Garrison]

We are looking for a Telecom Lawyer to help us be a CLEC in the Arkansas, 
Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Oklahoma areas. Also we are looking to setup 
agreements for peering, transport and resell for ATT and CenturyLink in the 
same areas and Missouri. We are already a CLEC in Missouri.

Thank you
Travis

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:16 AM Aled Morris 
wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 06:48, Baldur Norddahl 
> wrote:
> > It is possible one should not choose this system over a traditional
> approach, but the people screaming "rip it out" are out of line IMHO. It
> would be a huge expense to rewire a building with copper and they already
> got a working fiber system. Much can be said about GPON but it is actually
> quite stable and easy to manage.
>
> I don't think anyone is saying replace the existing fibre with copper,
> but instead to run cheap SFP-equipped switches in basically the same
> topology as the GPON you described.
>

That would still be costly in time and money with no obvious gain. You
would get some downsides however. Now you have many single point of
failures, a lot of small switches at the splitting points that need power
backup and be managed. And exactly the same issue with PoE that someone
raised. Only you will find more GPON ONT switches that already have the PoE
with a battery build in, because those devices where made to answer that.

Again not saying that you would make a new build in any particular way, but
to rip anything out of a brand new build requires justification. The
original poster might indeed have justifications, but the people
recommending to "rip it out" does not appear to have anything, but that
this is GPON technology. If your justification is that you only want to
work with technology known to you, then it is maybe you that needs to be
replaced.

It is certainly possible to build something close to the GPON system using
WDM instead. It is going to be more expensive. GPON splitters are very
cheap, WDM splitters less so and the DWDM SFP modules way more expensive
than the typical ONT. CWDM modules can be the same price as the ONT but you
need to add a switch to that. You will also have a problem with the multi
level tree approach.


> For a new build, less splitting and more copper in-building would be
> cheaper and easier.
>

Maybe. Those big fat copper runs get unwieldy and take up a lot of space.
That GPON system might have a 12 fiber, 3 mm cable as the backbone and a
maximum of 8 drop cables (2-3 mm) from the splitter. The drop cables are
much smaller than cat 6 cabling.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: A few GPON questions...

[Jared Mauch]

I have tested a variety of equipment as part of my FTTH enterprise. Active 
Ethernet is where I’m still sitting because I’m not quite happy with some of 
the PON hardware out there personally. 

Yes active solutions provide more flexibility in one area but they are only 
viable in dense environments where the cost to build is already high and the 
fiber count is cheap comparably. 

If you are within the b+ optics link budget there are options, but if you are 
spliced at your splitters any migration may be tricky. 

I’ve been doing 2F drop to the home so I can later to technology migration as 
the cost variance is about 7c for 1F vs 10c/ft for 2F. It’s a bit more as those 
drops are the longer portion vs the backbone legs, but I can change from active 
to GPON or back without trouble. 

It sounds like you have a typical vendor management problem where the equipment 
isn’t meeting your needs. Find a way to migrate to something else. Hopefully 
you have spare plant and budget to move to something else. If it’s homes, 
hopefully you can do a migration without coordination and entering the home, if 
it’s office campus see if you can DWDM or CWDM to get the capacity you need or 
there are other hardware like the UBNT OLT out there. A lot of the smaller FTTH 
types are also using the Huwaei hardware. Qualifying a vendor is hard and they 
change. I’ve spent decades working with my vendors trying to encourage them to 
do the right thing. The story you tell is a typical one of overworked employees 
without the power to fix the problems they see. 

As others said I would consider a change as your business risk may be too high. 
This is where network operation becomes business risk mitigation. 

- Jared 

Sent from my iCar

> On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:18 PM, Nick Bogle  wrote:
> 
> Hello fellow NANOG members :)
> 
> Let me start with a little bit of background, my day job is a Network 
> Engineer for a local university where we have primarily a Cisco environment 
> from phones to switching to routing, etc. Before my time, we hired a 
> contractor to design a GPON LAN system for a new building as a cost saving 
> measure (though I am not sure how successful that was). 
> 
> Either way, the contractor is about to hand the system off to us, and we have 
> gone through the training and such, and I feel confident in my ability to 
> manage the system, but we have a few questions that the manufacturer of our 
> equipment and our contractor didn't really want to answer. We are currently 
> using a Dasan Zhone MXK-F1419 with several different downstream ONT models 
> (all Zhone).
> 
> -We would like to consider use of 3rd party GPON B+ Optics on the linecards 
> to add redundancy to the splitter (as the cost of 1st party are too high). 
> Does anyone have experience with 3rd party vendors/compatibility/stability 
> issues? We were told they theoretically should work and just throw a log 
> event, but it hasn't been tested. If so, what vendors would you recommend? So 
> far all we've really seen are Ubiquiti and Fiberstore optics. 
> 
> -As GPON is a standard itself, I'm aware interoperability between OLT and ONT 
> vendors is heavily limited.. Does anyone have any experience using say, Zhone 
> ONT's with a different model OLT, or Zhone ONT's with a different model OLT? 
> I've heard word that Zhone ONT's may be able to work with Nokia OLT's but 
> it's technically not supported. 
> 
> -We've already experienced some pretty big stability issues (have replaced 1 
> line card 5 times..), our contractor is saying it's just because we were a 
> pretty early adopter of this line and that they've fixed it and fixed 
> internal policies to add additional QA and testing before shipping to 
> customers. Does anyone have any experience with working with Zhone and their 
> overall stability of components? 
> 
> - Any other thoughts/gotchas/advice for deploying a GPON environment in a 
> corporate LAN? (or about deploying a Zhone solution) It's pretty service 
> provider oriented, and is incredible noticeable in the CLI.  
> 
> Feel free to contact me offlist if you have any pertinent info that you don't 
> want on the list. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nick Bogle
> n...@bogle.se

Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions

[Aled Morris via NANOG]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 06:48, Baldur Norddahl  wrote:
> It is possible one should not choose this system over a traditional approach, 
> but the people screaming "rip it out" are out of line IMHO. It would be a 
> huge expense to rewire a building with copper and they already got a working 
> fiber system. Much can be said about GPON but it is actually quite stable and 
> easy to manage.

I don't think anyone is saying replace the existing fibre with copper,
but instead to run cheap SFP-equipped switches in basically the same
topology as the GPON you described.

For a new build, less splitting and more copper in-building would be
cheaper and easier.

Aled