I completely agree with you on this Owen, and we were almost in that situation
in the UK but Ofcom backed down for some reason :(
BT, as a state created monopoly, was facing being broken up with the local loop
operations being hived off into a completely separate company to give all
providers
Edward Dore wrote:
Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not fiber optic broadband,
because it is broadband (at least with today's access speed)
with fiber optic.
Then why would you not also consider bog standard ADSL to also
be fibre optic?
Because I think fiber optic broadband implies
On 16 Feb 2013, at 11:30, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Edward Dore wrote:
Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not fiber optic broadband,
because it is broadband (at least with today's access speed)
with fiber optic.
Then why would you not also consider bog standard ADSL to also
be fibre optic?
On 14 Feb 2013, at 01:13, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Edward Dore wrote:
Sadly, despite this being challenged with both the telecoms
regulator (Ofcom) and advertising watchdog (ASA), for some
reason both seem pretty happy with the utter farce that is
advertising BT/OpenReach's VDSL based Fibre To
With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in terms of layer 1
unbundling - it's impossible with either as they are both shared mediums
aggregated before the exchange.
Which is a classic example of why I say the L1 provider must not be allowed to
participate in or act as a
Mark Andrews wrote:
Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not fiber optic broadband,
because it is broadband (at least with today's access speed)
with fiber optic.
And by that argument pots dialup is fiber optic because the packets
went over a fiber optic link to get to the CO.
Well, not
GuysŠwe're done on this. Let it go, already.
-c
On 14-02-13 19:13 , Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not fiber optic broadband,
because it is broadband (at least with today's access speed)
with fiber optic.
And
Masataka,
Using the UK as a model for US and Canadian deployments is a fallacy. The
population density there is 673 per square mile, much closer to Japan's
(873 per sq mile) than either the US (89 per sq mile) or Canada (10 per sq
mile). The UK also has a legal monopoly for telephone
Warren Bailey wrote:
No one wants to deal with an
arrogant prick, especially one who says someone lost because your
opinion seems to be more valid to yourself.
Figures in
http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/policyreports/chousa/bb_seibi/pdf/041209_2_14.pdf
is not my opinion but
Scott Helms wrote:
Masataka,
Using the UK as a model for US and Canadian deployments is a fallacy.
May or may not be.
But, what Using the UK as a model for US and Canadian
deployments!?
I'm afraid it's not me but you to have done so.
So?
Who are you arguing against?
You may
On 13 February 2013 12:34, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Using the UK as a model for US and Canadian deployments is a fallacy.
I don't believe anyone was looking at the UK model? But now that you
mention it the UK has a rather interesting model for fibre deployment,
a significant portion
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
If you can't accept the shown reality that PON is more expensive
than SS and insist on stating it were my opinion without any
evidences, its your arrogance.
PERIOD.
Nope. It's you, dude. Really.
plonk
Sadly, despite this being challenged with both the telecoms regulator (Ofcom)
and advertising watchdog (ASA), for some reason both seem pretty happy with the
utter farce that is advertising BT/OpenReach's VDSL based Fibre To The Cabinet
and Virgin Media's Hybrid Fibre Coax networks as fibre
Edward Dore wrote:
Sadly, despite this being challenged with both the telecoms
regulator (Ofcom) and advertising watchdog (ASA), for some
reason both seem pretty happy with the utter farce that is
advertising BT/OpenReach's VDSL based Fibre To The Cabinet
and Virgin Media's Hybrid Fibre Coax
In message 511c3a4a.7050...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp, Masataka Ohta writes:
Edward Dore wrote:
Sadly, despite this being challenged with both the telecoms
regulator (Ofcom) and advertising watchdog (ASA), for some
reason both seem pretty happy with the utter farce that is
advertising
Game. Blouses.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
Date: 02/13/2013 5:25 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2
If the L1 provider's responsibility ends at the jack on the outside NIU,
as an ILEC's does today with copper, then you have clean separation and
easy access for both initial installation and for later
troubleshooting--clear benefits that help mitigate nearly all the
problems Scott refers to,
In part because I'm realizing that it is literally viable to plonk a 6509
into the colo, get a 10G uplink and pump out a bunch of 1000base?X
connections (or even 100base?X) to customers at a fairly low price
per port. In this case, there wouldn't be any active L2 termination at
the customer
Masataka,
Numbers? Examples? This is simply incorrect in many places. The only
reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it, are you
saying that all greenfield PON installs are cheaper done as Ethernet
without exception?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Masataka Ohta
phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com
Date: 02/11/2013 4:44 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org,nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Check out GCI's
Scott Helms wrote:
Numbers? Examples?
Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.
This is simply incorrect in many places. The only
reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it,
No, the only reason to insist on PON is to make L1 unbundling
not
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
Numbers? Examples?
Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.
Japan has one of the highest population densities of major economies in the
world with an
Scott, I've been down this road with Masataka. over the last few days. I
gave up.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
Numbers? Examples?
Scott Helms wrote:
Numbers? Examples?
Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.
Japan has one of the highest population densities of major economies in the
The examples are in rural area and I already stated population
density in English.
No, the only reason to
Jason Baugher wrote:
Scott, I've been down this road with Masataka. over the last few days. I
gave up.
You have lost instantly, because you insisted on 32:1, which
makes expensive PON even more expensive.
It's stupid to insist on 32:1 to have 6 trunk fibers and 31 drop
fibers within a cable
At this point I think the topic has been exhausted. If you participate in
a conversation, try to chime in with thoughtful and insightful points.
We're on here to help each other, if you want to measure girth there is
probably a better venue to do so. I don't think anyone lost anything,
other than
Jason Baugher wrote:
No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate someone who don't want
to be educated.
You're not trying to educate anyone at all. You're just stomping
your foot and insisting that you're right rather than have a
meaningful discussion.
So far, I have shown several figures
On 05-Feb-13 11:37, Scott Helms 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 I can explain this more plainly, I
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Sure, almost nobody asks for dark fiber today because they know it costs
several orders of magnitude more than a T1 or whatever. However, if the
price for dark fiber were the same (or lower), latent demand would
... but now you are dictating what technology is used, via the active
aggregation equipment (i.e. ADMs) you installed at your nodes on the
ring. Also, the fiber provider now has to maintain and upgrade that
active aggregation equipment, as opposed to just patching fiber from one
port to
On 11-Feb-13 13:13, Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Sure, almost nobody asks for dark fiber today because they know it costs
several orders of magnitude more than a T1 or whatever. However, if the
price for dark fiber were the same (or lower), latent demand would
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that;
unlike L3, I don't believe it actually needs to be a separate
company; I expect most ISP business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an
accomodation to potential
I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of fiber,
which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads him to invite
all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for a purely L1
provider, simply would not apply.
Not at all, I've obsessing about all of the costs.
I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on the
outside wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber owner can test
to. If an L2 operator has active equipment, put it inside--and it would
be part of the customer-purchased (or -leased) equipment when they turn
up
On 11-Feb-13 16:37, Scott Helms wrote:
I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of
fiber, which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads
him to invite all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for
a purely L1 provider, simply would not apply.
Scott Helms wrote:
IMO if you can't pay
for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently then your chances of
long term success are very low.
That is not a business model for infrastructure such as gas,
electricity, CATV, water and fiber network, all of which
need long term planning and
Nearly all of the industries you mentioned below receive some type of
local or federal/government funding. If I was going to build some kind of
access network, I would be banging on the .gov door asking for grants and
low interest loans to help roll out broadband to remote areas. My former
On 11-Feb-13 15:24, Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that; unlike L3, I
don't believe it actually needs to be a separate company; I expect most ISP
business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an accomodation to
On 11-Feb-13 18:23, Warren Bailey wrote:
On 2/11/13 4:16 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
IMO if you can't pay for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently
then your chances of long term success are very low.
That is not a business model
Check out GCI's Terranet project.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Date: 02/11/2013 4:37 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On 11-Feb-13 18:23
.
Original message
From: Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com
Date: 02/11/2013 4:44 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org,nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Check out GCI's Terranet project.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
In addition, as PON is even less efficient initially when
subscriber density is low and there are few subscribers to
share a field splitter (unless extremely lengthy drop cables
are used, which costs a lot),
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
copper services brought into the home.
Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through
On Feb 11, 2013, at 20:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
copper services brought into the
On 11-Feb-13 22:33, Jay Ashworth wrote:
What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a
patchcord*. If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external*
jackbox, then that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop
cable -- and the ISP field tech will have to work
Jason Baugher wrote:
You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
topic.
I'm shocked that you waste time trying to educate us.
No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate someone who don't want
to be educated.
You're the one making the assertion, it's not my job to help you
On 04-Feb-13 15:17, Jean-Francois Mezei 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
leaves indepdendant ISPs having to explain to
On 02-Feb-13 14:07, Scott Helms wrote:
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
On 03-Feb-13 14:33, Scott Helms wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 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
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Jason Baugher wrote:
You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
topic.
I'm shocked that you waste time trying to educate us.
No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate someone who
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?
That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
which does not contribute to reduce the number of fibers in a
trunk cable.
16 is a safe
Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp writes:
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?
That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
which does not contribute to
You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
document says? That is hilarious. How about you point out a reference
written in a language common to North America, since this IS NANOG.
Anyone here doing or know someone doing 4-1 or 8-1 splits, in a typical
American
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or
32?
That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com writes:
Our main cost is labor. Fiber, fdh, splitters, etc... are marginal.
dingdingdingding WE HAVE A WINNER. :-)
-r
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail,
total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times
more than the trunk cable length.
Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON.
You're confusing fiber architecture with what gets
Jason Baugher wrote:
You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
document says?
You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
topic.
BTW, it is not my document but an article in a famous online
magazine.
How about you point out a reference
Jay Ashworth wrote:
So, over three times as much fiber if you're not putting the splitter
in the field, which is... the opposite of what you assert?
That is a very minor material cost.
What matters is labor, which is mostly proportional to not total
length of fiber but total length of cable
Japan has fiber optic internet all figured out, however cable dressing 101
was a class everyone skipped.
http://www.dannychoo.com/post/en/1653/Japan+Optic+Fiber+Internet.html
On 2/9/13 4:13 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
Jason Baugher wrote:
You are seriously
On Feb 9, 2013 6:14 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
Jason Baugher wrote:
You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
document says?
You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
topic.
If you say so. In your own
Jay Ashworth wrote:
As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
unless subscriber density is very high.
Oh, ghod; we're not gonna go here, again, are we?
That PON is more expensive than SS is the reality of an
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Assume you have 4000 subscribers and total trunk cable length
Correction. Though I wrote 4000, it is a population and the number
of subscribers are 1150.
For example, if drop cables of PON are 10m longer in average than
that of SS, it's total length is 40km, which is
On 13-02-08 03:36, Masataka Ohta wrote:
The problem of PON is that, to efficiently share a fiber and
a splitter, they must be shared by many subscribers, which
means drop cables are longer than those of SS.
Pardon my ignorance here, but could you explain why the cables would be
physically
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Jay Ashworth wrote:
As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
unless subscriber density is very high.
Oh, ghod; we're
Hi,
If by FTTH you mean the ADSL2+/VDSL offering they packaged as Fibe
(yes the named it that).
It is available to resellers... /wave
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield,
Jason Baugher wrote:
In a greenfield build, cost difference for plant between PON and active
will be negligible for field-based splitters, non-existent for CO-based
splitters.
If you choose to have CO-based splitters, you need to have MDF
for L1 unbundling, and 1:8 (or 1:4, 1:32 or whatever)
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
The problem of PON is that, to efficiently share a fiber and
a splitter, they must be shared by many subscribers, which
means drop cables are longer than those of SS.
Pardon my ignorance here, but could you explain why the cables would be
physically different in
Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp writes:
Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?
16 is a safe number.
-r
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no
advantage to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface
are not significant.
There has always
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no advantage
to doing ATM, but the real
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
That has not been demonstrated in the market. There are lots of people
who say this, generally they're involved in building fiber plants, but
in the US and Canada I've not seen a single report of an actual network
where this was true. Do you have any
Scott Helms wrote:
Now, in general for greenfield builds I'd agree except for
PON, which is in many cases cheaper than an Ethernet build.
As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
unless subscriber density is very
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Scott Helms wrote:
Now, in general for greenfield builds I'd agree except for
PON, which is in many cases cheaper than an Ethernet build.
As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
to 4
In a greenfield build, cost difference for plant between PON and active
will be negligible for field-based splitters, non-existent for CO-based
splitters.
If the company already has some fiber in the ground, then depending on
where it is might drastically reduce build costs to use field-based
On Feb 7, 2013 12:24 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
That has not been demonstrated in the market. There are lots of people
who say this, generally they're involved in building fiber plants, but in
the US and Canada I've not seen a single
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Jason Baugher wrote:
On the CO-side electronics, however... I think it's safe to say that you
can do GPON under $100/port. AE is probably going to run close to
$300/port. That's a pretty big cost difference, and if it were me I'd be
looking pretty hard at a PON deployment
However, for any given ring, you are locked into a single technology and
you have to put active electronics out in the field.
Correct, but you can have many layer 2 rings riding your physical ring. In
a normal install you're going to have over a hundred fibers in your
physical ring, I'd
be astoundingly expensive for us.
This is what I see most commonly.
-Original Message-
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.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
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
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
: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
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
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
However, for any given ring, you are locked into a single technology
and you have to put active electronics out in the field.
Correct, but you can have many layer 2 rings riding your physical ring. In
a normal install
...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
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
That's incorrect, you simply don't have as many available but in a
current
normal build you could easily provide 100+ dark fiber leases that
extend
from your MDF (still don't like using this term here) all the way down
to the home or business.
And, conversely, I could, actually,
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
GPON/DOCSIS/RFoG? That's one people are deploying today.
Over the 50 year proposed lifetime of the plant? WTF knows. That's
exactly the point.
To paraphrase Tom Peters, you don't look like a trailbreaker by
*emulating what other trailbreakers have
- Original Message -
From: Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk
I'm not *trying* to do the last thing.
I'm trying to do the next thing. Or maybe the one after that.
The existing copper network was in many cases built like a star with
some very long runs. This worked fine for
I think that risk low enough to take it, especially since my entire
city fits in about a 3mi radius. :-)
This is data I'd like to have had earlier, if your total diameter is 6
miles then the math will almost certainly work to home run everything,
though I'd still run the numbers.
No, I
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Yep, that's likely what will happen over the long term anyhow. That's why
I asked about a new apartment building in your territory. You decision
would be either run additional fiber to support each apartment as an
end point,
On 13-02-06 10:16, Eric Wieling wrote:
Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul their
DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?
In Bell Canada Territory, wholesale traffic between DSLAM and BAS/BRAS
travels normally.
The BAS establishes the PPPoE
Scott Helms wrote:
Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real drawback
to using ATM.
High cost is the real drawback.
but the basic concept is not bad.
It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See
the subject.
Why?
Because, for competing ISPs with
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real
drawback
to using ATM.
High cost is the real drawback.
The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an
On 13-02-06 16:53, Scott Helms wrote:
You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers right?
You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only open
access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe.
Actually, there is a cost. In
Jean,
Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that
PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any
other technology I'm aware of (anyone else have ideas?) in North America
and Europe. I'd also say that the ERX is an EOL box, but that
Scott Helms wrote:
The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no advantage
to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface are not
significant.
You miss ATM switches to connect the card
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no
advantage
to doing ATM, but the real cost
Jerome Nicolle wrote:
In non-dense areas, zone operators have to build concentration points
(kind of MMRs) for at least 300 residences (when chaining MMRs) or 1000
residences (for a single MMR per zone). Theses MMRs often take the form
of street cabinets or shelters and have to be equiped
On 13-02-06 17:12, Scott Helms wrote:
Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that
PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any
other technology I'm aware of
By default, Telus in western Canada has deployed ethernet based DSL for
However, the australian NBN model is far superior because it enables far
more flexibility such as multicasting etc. PPPoE is useless overhead if
you have the right management tools to point a customer to his ISP. (and
it also means that the wholesale infrastructure can be switch based
intead
On 13-02-06 18:11, Scott Helms wrote:
I'd agree. Its a better way of doing L2 unbundling than PPPoE. Its just
PPPoE had the sharing concept baked into it so it was easy for most
operators to use historically.
PPPoE has its roots in the dialup days. So Incumbents were more than
happy to be
: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:48 PM
To: Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Scott Helms wrote:
Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real
drawback to using ATM.
High cost is the real drawback.
but the basic concept is not bad.
It is not enough, even
Scott Helms wrote:
You miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple modems.
Most PPPoE L2TP setups have no ATM besides the default PVC
between the modem and the DSLAM.
You still miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple DSLAMs.
You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
