Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?

[Art Plato]

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback Brian. Price is important, but not the be all 
of the consideration process. Troubleshooting ease matters just as much.

- Original Message -
From: "Shawn L" <sha...@up.net>
To: "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 8:27:46 AM
Subject: Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?


We like Calix's gpon gear, especially the E7 series.  Though it's on the higher 
side price-wise than others.  Manageable through their CMS software, the web, 
or command line.  We tend to use their CMS software for most things, but the 
CLI is decent, and gives you access to anything you'd want.
 

-----Original Message-
From: "Art Plato" <apl...@coldwater.org>
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 2:38pm
To: 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?



Brian,
How complex is the troubleshooting side of the Adtran? We Use the Enablence 
Wave7 and getting any useful information from the CPE via the CLI is like 
pulling hens teeth. I have yet to see a way to view the actual throughput on 
the ethernet interfaces, only total bits passed, or the light levels at the CPE 
fiber interface. A bit annoying actually. It means a truck roll to get light 
levels at the CPE.

Art.

- Original Message -
From: "Brian R" <briansupp...@hotmail.com>
To: "Eric Rogers" <ecrog...@precisionds.com>, "Jay Patel" <cle...@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 2:25:44 PM
Subject: Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?

We use the Adtran ONT solutions. We are using AE (Active Ethernet) not GPON but 
the solutions are similar for Adtran. We are providing IP and Analog this way. 
If used in the specified scope only there have been very little problems. 
Adtran is constantly updating their firmware, this can be a positive and 
negative at times. LoL

The configuration is Adtran TA5000 with an Active Ethernet 24-Port Module 
(1187562F1) feeding an ONT TA324E (1287737G2) at the customer premise.
For power we are using the Cyber Power CSN27U12v-NA3 units.
The clam shell we are using to put the ONT in is TA350 ONT NID HSG SPLICE 
(1187770G1)
All of these part numbers should be available on Adtrans website to look up.

We are also testing some iPhotonix ONTs but have not gotten to the point we are 
sure we want to deploy them.

Brian

PS I will post this in voiceops as well (it may be more relevant there)


From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Eric Rogers 
<ecrog...@precisionds.com>
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Jay Patel; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Favorite GPON Vendor?

I Personally would like to know as well. We are just getting into GPON and the 
equipment we have been evaluating is clunky at best... It came highly 
recommended and supposed to be stable.

Eric Rogers
PDS Connect
www.pdsconnect.me
(317) 831-3000 x200


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay Patel
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 9:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Favorite GPON Vendor?

Who is your favorite GPON OLT/ONU Vendor? Why? I am looking for
recommendations

I apologize in advance , if you feel my question is inappropriate for this 
mailing list ( feel free to point me to right forum/mailing list).

Regards,
Jay.

Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?

[Art Plato]

Brian,
How complex is the troubleshooting side of the Adtran? We Use the Enablence 
Wave7 and getting any useful information from the CPE via the CLI is like 
pulling hens teeth. I have yet to see a way to view the actual throughput on 
the ethernet interfaces, only total bits passed, or the light levels at the CPE 
fiber interface. A bit annoying actually. It means a truck roll to get light 
levels at the CPE.

Art.

- Original Message -
From: "Brian R" 
To: "Eric Rogers" , "Jay Patel" 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 2:25:44 PM
Subject: Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?

We use the Adtran ONT solutions.  We are using AE (Active Ethernet) not GPON 
but the solutions are similar for Adtran.  We are providing IP and Analog this 
way.  If used in the specified scope only there have been very little problems. 
 Adtran is constantly updating their firmware, this can be a positive and 
negative at times.  LoL

The configuration is Adtran TA5000 with an Active Ethernet 24-Port Module 
(1187562F1) feeding an ONT TA324E (1287737G2) at the customer premise.
For power we are using the Cyber Power CSN27U12v-NA3 units.
The clam shell we are using to put the ONT in is TA350 ONT NID HSG SPLICE 
(1187770G1)
All of these part numbers should be available on Adtrans website to look up.

We are also testing some iPhotonix ONTs but have not gotten to the point we are 
sure we want to deploy them.

Brian

PS I will post this in voiceops as well (it may be more relevant there)


From: NANOG  on behalf of Eric Rogers 

Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Jay Patel; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Favorite GPON Vendor?

I Personally would like to know as well.  We are just getting into GPON and the 
equipment we have been evaluating is clunky at best... It came highly 
recommended and supposed to be stable.

Eric Rogers
PDS Connect
www.pdsconnect.me
(317) 831-3000 x200


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay Patel
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 9:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Favorite GPON Vendor?

Who is your favorite GPON  OLT/ONU Vendor? Why?   I am looking for
recommendations

I apologize in advance , if you feel my question is inappropriate for this 
mailing list ( feel free to point me to right forum/mailing list).

Regards,
Jay.

Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network

[Art Plato]

How about buy the movies in question, convert them to MP4, install a media 
server on a local box and configure Xbox, tablet, smart-phone, whatever to 
access the media server? That is how my 3 year old grandson watches the Bubble 
Guppies movie umpteen million times during a 4 day stay. Just a thought. Oh, it 
also affords my wife and I the luxury of having our entire movie collection 
available for on demand viewing. No searching through cases or disc binders. 
Just a thought.

- Original Message -
From: fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 2:58:42 PM
Subject: Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network

 allow my customers as an ISP to cache the content at their home.

 Do you *mean* their home -- an end-user residence?

 Yes, I do *mean* that.

 As in you, Jay, should be allowed to run your own cache server in your
 home (Traffic Server is the one that I'm using in the TLMC concept).

 Wouldn't you like that?

 It would do little good; my hit rate on such a cache would be unlikely to
 be high enough to merit the traffic to keep it charged.

(Children watching a movie only once? Not a chance. It's more like 
unlimited number of times and then some more...).

So don't set-up an cache server at your home/residence.

-- 
//fredan

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

[Art Plato]

I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing 
services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with 
Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When 
the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they 
would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, 
until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is 
reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big 
brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information 
without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are 
pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes 
that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider 
rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, 
from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back 
to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide 
a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider 
in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely 
translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.

- Original Message -
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca

 It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
 federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
 offering. Wholesale only.

 Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
 involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
 service providers to provide retail services over the last mile
 network.

As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
taxpayers.


 It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is
 a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact
 be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as
 subscribers?  Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of
 my municipality?

Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is
returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in
the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering
customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be
had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

[Art Plato]

That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the 
ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market 
the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly 
play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business 
community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens.

- Original Message -
From: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services.   
Spin off the layer 1  2 services as a separate entity as far as finance 
 legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer 
of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to 
everyone else.  If there is enough competition with the layer 1  2 
services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but 
it'll still be there as an ISP of last resort, to borrow a concept 
from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is 
available.

- Pete


On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
 I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing 
 services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with 
 Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When 
 the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they 
 would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, 
 until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is 
 reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big 
 brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information 
 without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are 
 pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director 
 believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 
 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The 
 reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services 
 will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the 
 first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is 
 currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive 
 service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.

 - Original Message -
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
 To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
 Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM
 Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

 On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
 It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
 federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
 offering. Wholesale only.

 Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
 involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
 service providers to provide retail services over the last mile
 network.
 As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
 layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
 for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
 taxpayers.


 It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is
 a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact
 be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as
 subscribers?  Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of
 my municipality?
 Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is
 returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in
 the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering
 customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be
 had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.

 Regards,
 Bill Herrin

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

[Art Plato]

I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. 
Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also 
the local electric utility. 

- Original Message -

From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com 
To: Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org 
Cc: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca, nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM 
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? 


I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its 
non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator 
concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't 
consider it important/viable. 


Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not 
impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the 
FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS 
panel that's not a multi-tenant system. 



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato  apl...@coldwater.org  wrote: 


That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the 
ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market 
the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly 
play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business 
community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. 

- Original Message - 
From: Peter Kristolaitis  alte...@alter3d.ca  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM 
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? 

There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. 
Spin off the layer 1  2 services as a separate entity as far as finance 
 legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer 
of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to 
everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1  2 
services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but 
it'll still be there as an ISP of last resort, to borrow a concept 
from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is 
available. 

- Pete 


On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote: 
 I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing 
 services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with 
 Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When 
 the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they 
 would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, 
 until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is 
 reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big 
 brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information 
 without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are 
 pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director 
 believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 
 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The 
 reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services 
 will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the 
 first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is 
 currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive 
 service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. 
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: William Herrin  b...@herrin.us  
 To: Jay Ashworth  j...@baylink.com  
 Cc: NANOG  nanog@nanog.org  
 Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM 
 Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? 
 
 On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth  j...@baylink.com  wrote: 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Jean-Francois Mezei  jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca  
 It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or 
 federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail 
 offering. Wholesale only. 
 
 Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not 
 involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many 
 service providers to provide retail services over the last mile 
 network. 
 As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at 
 layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue 
 for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the 
 taxpayers. 
 
 
 It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is 
 a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact 
 be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as 
 subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of 
 my municipality? 
 Not Road

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

[Art Plato]

Scott,
Thanks for the warning. I am planning on having those dialogues with any 
potential vendors, as well as ask them for active references.

Art.

- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
To: Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:54:06 PM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

Art,

In that case its even harder.  Before you even consider doing open
access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done
using the same architecture you're planning on deploying.  Open access
in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but
on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org wrote:
 I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild.
 Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also
 the local electric utility.

 
 From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
 To: Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org
 Cc: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca, nanog@nanog.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM
 Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

 I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its
 non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator
 concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups
 don't consider it important/viable.

 Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though
 not impossible, because of how provisioning works.   Making it work in many
 of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single
 NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system.


 On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org wrote:

 That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with
 the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive
 market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old
 monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of
 our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our
 citizens.

 - Original Message -
 From: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM
 Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your
 yard?

 There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services.
 Spin off the layer 1  2 services as a separate entity as far as finance
  legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer
 of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to
 everyone else.  If there is enough competition with the layer 1  2
 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but
 it'll still be there as an ISP of last resort, to borrow a concept
 from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is
 available.

 - Pete


 On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
  I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing
  services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with
  Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative.
  When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear
  that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town
  this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service
  that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't
  play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No
  information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all
  that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My
  director believes that we would better serve our community by being the
  layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in
  principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities
  providing the services will fall back to the original position that 
  prompted
  us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum
  price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to
  provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our
  constituents would lose. IMHO.
 
  - Original Message -
  From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
  To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
  Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
  Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM
  Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your
  yard?
 
  On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
  - Original Message -
  From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
  It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
  federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail

Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

[Art Plato]

Although not technically private, this is where we see ourselves getting to if 
a good competitive environment fosters from the construction of the 
infrastructure. Again, we can't abandon our citizens to a one provider 
monopoly, but if a true competitive environment arose we would be quite content 
to sell last mile at a set price to anyone that wanted to provide services 
across that last mile and use those funds to maintain and upgrade said 
infrastructure as required going forward.

- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
To: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:49:38 PM
Subject: Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth


On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:

 There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
 into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much space the
 termination in the colo would take, such as splice trays, bulkheads, etc...
 Someone earlier mentioned being able to have millions of fibers coming
 through a vault, which is true assuming they are just passing through the
 vault. When you need to break into one of those 864-fiber cables, the room
 for splice cases suddenly becomes a problem.
 
 The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the
 assumption by most that a government entity would do a good job as a
 layer-1 or -2 provider and would be more efficient than a private company.
 Governments, including municipalities, are notorious for corruption, fraud,
 waste - you name it. Even when government bids out projects to the private
 sector these problems are seen.

I now this is a popular refrain, but in reality, it's not all that accurate.

I have no problem with allowing L1/L2 to be done by private enterprise, so
long as said private enterprises are required to abide by the following rules:

1.  They are not allowed to sell L3+ services.
2.  They are not allowed to own any portion of any L3+ service provider.
3.  They must sell their L1/L2 services to any L3+ service provider on
equal terms.

Owen