But for the price among other nice things, who cares. Throw two uplinks to it and do the fancy stuff on a core switch/router if desired.
Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. > On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > > For clarification: > > Currently no: ERP, ERPS, Trill, SPB, FabricPath, ITU G8032, ITU G8032v2, > MC-LAG, etc > > I probably missed some Netgear variant or someshit... > > On Mar 28, 2017 6:40 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: > Again: NO > > On Mar 28, 2017 6:26 PM, "Gino Villarini" <[email protected]> wrote: >> No? >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_Ring_Protection_Switching >> >> From: Af <[email protected]> on behalf of Josh Reynolds >> <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:51 PM >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the unicorn is here! was: Small Scale PON >> >> Nope... >> >> >> >> Gino Villarini >> >> President >> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >> <aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png> >> >>> On Mar 28, 2017 5:38 PM, "Gino Villarini" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Huh ist it G8032? Even Planet Sw have it >>> >>> From: Af <[email protected]> on behalf of Josh Reynolds >>> <[email protected]> >>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 4:35 PM >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the unicorn is here! was: Small Scale PON >>> >>> No Erps, that's a Extreme Networks standard anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>> Gino Villarini >>> >>> President >>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >>> <aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png> >>> >>>> On Mar 28, 2017 3:18 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Interesting in knowing if the uplink will do erps rings. >>>> >>>> From: Gino Villarini >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:16 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the unicorn is here! was: Small Scale PON >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Af <[email protected]> on behalf of PE R <[email protected]> >>>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Monday, March 27, 2017 at 7:52 PM >>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>>> >>>> OLT subscriber ranges can actually range to 512 (vs 256) per OLT or >>>> higher, or, mix with XGS in the same shelf. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino Villarini >>>> >>>> President >>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 5:06 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>>> >>>> Put it this way, for each connection on AE you have two SFP optics and a >>>> port on a switch. You also probably want to battery back that. >>>> >>>> For gpon you just push your 8 or 16 or 32 subs to a splitter that can fit >>>> inside someone's pocket and then single strand to your OLT with your >>>> non-$800 or so from what I remember Calix Pon optic :P >>>> >>>> Battery back the OLT, sure, but that's anywhere from 64 to 256 subs per, >>>> and a lot lower battery requirements. >>>> >>>> I think your Calix experience has really skewed you to what's out there, >>>> to be fair. >>>> >>>> On Mar 27, 2017 4:58 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Yes and no. Pretty much the same amount of fiber depending on where you >>>> locate the splitters or switches. >>>> >>>> On AE you battery back the switch. >>>> On GPON you battery back the OLT/OIM. >>>> >>>> At the remote cabinet, you either have a cheap switch and SFPs. >>>> -or- >>>> You have an expensive OLT/OIM and splitter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Josh Reynolds >>>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:53 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>>> >>>> AE requires a lot more electronics and optics. And fiber. And battery >>>> backup. Etc. >>>> >>>> On Mar 27, 2017 4:33 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Years ago, there was a break even point on active vs PON. If you had 16 >>>> or more in an area that could take a PON it was worth doing the PON. >>>> But that was comparing Calix AE vs Calix PON. If you do AE like Sterling >>>> I don't think PON is ever cost effective compared to Calix PON. >>>> >>>> With PON you still have to have a drop to each home. The cost of the >>>> cable is in the placement, not in the cable itself. >>>> So the question is, where do you place the splitter vs where do you place >>>> the switch and SFPs. Personally, I would do it Sterling style on new >>>> greenfield. The ONLY reason I do it with the expensive PON is we are a >>>> regulated common carrier with provider of last resort obligations. I have >>>> to give POTS that is battery backed up, legally required to do this. >>>> >>>> Cannot risk a 911 call not going through due to a power outage etc. >>>> Cannot trust the customer to not unplug a UPS. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett >>>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:11 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>>> >>>> Yeah, so PON vs AE was actually the next research project for me to >>>> tackle. >>>> >>>> It seems like there ought to be savings with PON because of lower fiber >>>> count.....lower fiber count ought to lead to smaller/cheaper enclosures. >>>> Less junk at the head end too. I haven't gotten that far yet, but I >>>> was thinking I might "scrimp" with PON. You're saying maybe not? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: 3/27/2017 4:54:08 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>>> >>>> I would be worried that it will go the way of some of their other ideas. >>>> Cheap... you get what you pay for. >>>> >>>> FTTH, I would rather pay more and know it will be solid and be around in >>>> the years to come. >>>> Not an area where you want to scrimp. If you want to scrimp go active >>>> ethernet. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett >>>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 12:56 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>>> >>>> Well....I have to build with what's available today. If I delay to wait >>>> for the next hot product, I'll always be waiting. >>>> >>>> Besides, I honestly don't know what Ubiquiti brings to the table that >>>> other vendors don't. I suppose it will be cost competitive, but that's >>>> less important to me than having it just work. >>>> >>>> -Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "Jon Langeler" <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: 3/27/2017 2:52:03 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>>> >>>> With ubiquiti shipping real soon, you might want to wait >>>> >>>> Jon Langeler >>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 27, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I asked the Alphion sales rep about this. He says the optics are coded, >>>> yes. As far as mixing ONT from one vendor with an OLT from another he >>>> said in essence GPON is a standard, but it isn't usually tested across >>>> vendors so whether it works fine, works with bugs, or doesn't work at all >>>> is going to be a matter of chance. >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: 3/23/2017 2:54:04 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>>> >>>> No, generally speaking there is no crossvendor compatibility with GPON. >>>> >>>> Jared >
