Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Feb/19 15:06, Colton Conor wrote:

> Well the CES is EOLed.

Like I said, been a while. But with a quick scan over the years, nothing
is blowing my skirt up.


> ACX5048 can be had for around $10k, so not cheap for residential
> customers but fine for upstream aggregation.

You need to wine you vendors :-).

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Feb/19 15:06, Colton Conor wrote:

> Well the CES is EOLed.

Like I said, been a while. But with a quick scan over the years, nothing
is blowing my skirt up.


>
> ACX5048 can be had for around $10k, so not cheap for residential
> customers but fine for upstream aggregation.

You need wine you vendors :-).

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Colton Conor]

Well the CES is EOLed.

ACX5048 can be had for around $10k, so not cheap for residential customers
but fine for upstream aggregation.



On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:00 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 14/Feb/19 23:25, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The CES is...wonky.  My Foundry/Brocade/Extreme SEs have steered me
> > away from them on more than one occasion.
> >
> > The CER is fine but of course more expensive.  It'll take a full
> > Internet table, though, which is handy.
> >
> > For AE resi deployments, I'd aggregate folks onto cheap 48 port
> > switches then terminate onto a single pizza box router somewhere "less
> > deep" in the network.  Distributed, in-field L3 termination doesn't
> > mean you have to terminate L3 right at the customer-facing port.
>
> One of the reasons I'd pay a little extra for an Active-E FTTH-centric
> switch is to control bandwidth right at the port the customer connects
> to. Cheap Ethernet switches generally don't have this capability (or if
> they do, have it in only one direction). This is why I felt the CES/CER
> were reasonable, but purely as Layer 2 termination and not using their
> IP/MPLS capabilities.
>
> Anyway, it's been a while since I had any interest in this, so it's
> possible life has changed since I was at the beach :-).
>
> Mark.
>
>

Re: Last Mile Design

[Alain Hebert]

    Not all gen of CER takes full routes.

    I got a pair of 1gen here with 512k FIB.

-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443

On 2/14/19 4:25 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

On 2/14/19 12:08 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:

As a pure FTTH Active-E AN, I still think the Brocade (Extreme) CER/CES
is a good box.


The CES is...wonky.  My Foundry/Brocade/Extreme SEs have steered me 
away from them on more than one occasion.


The CER is fine but of course more expensive.  It'll take a full 
Internet table, though, which is handy.


For AE resi deployments, I'd aggregate folks onto cheap 48 port 
switches then terminate onto a single pizza box router somewhere "less 
deep" in the network.  Distributed, in-field L3 termination doesn't 
mean you have to terminate L3 right at the customer-facing port.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 14/Feb/19 23:25, Brandon Martin wrote:

>  
>
> The CES is...wonky.  My Foundry/Brocade/Extreme SEs have steered me
> away from them on more than one occasion.
>
> The CER is fine but of course more expensive.  It'll take a full
> Internet table, though, which is handy.
>
> For AE resi deployments, I'd aggregate folks onto cheap 48 port
> switches then terminate onto a single pizza box router somewhere "less
> deep" in the network.  Distributed, in-field L3 termination doesn't
> mean you have to terminate L3 right at the customer-facing port.

One of the reasons I'd pay a little extra for an Active-E FTTH-centric
switch is to control bandwidth right at the port the customer connects
to. Cheap Ethernet switches generally don't have this capability (or if
they do, have it in only one direction). This is why I felt the CES/CER
were reasonable, but purely as Layer 2 termination and not using their
IP/MPLS capabilities.

Anyway, it's been a while since I had any interest in this, so it's
possible life has changed since I was at the beach :-).

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 14/Feb/19 17:10, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Not sure if this is what y'all are talking about, but I use lots of Juniper 
> ACX5048 (previously Cisco ME3600 or ASR9000) for mpls-capable router edging 
> in native ip/ethernet from ftth gpon network into mpls l2circuits and LOTS of 
> vrf vrf for public ip, vrf for cgnat for private ip, vrf for voice...  
> I'm glad I did it.
>
>
> Residential- ONT-ftth/gpon--OLT--ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
> x---cgnat/inet--
>
> Residential- DSL Modem-DSLAM---ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
> y---cgnat/inet--
>
> Residential- Cable Modem-CMTS---ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
> z---cgnat/inet--

I've never been a fan of the ACX because of its merchant silicon.

On the other hand, that makes it quite affordable.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Brandon Martin]

On 2/14/19 12:08 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:

As a pure FTTH Active-E AN, I still think the Brocade (Extreme) CER/CES
is a good box.


The CES is...wonky.  My Foundry/Brocade/Extreme SEs have steered me away 
from them on more than one occasion.


The CER is fine but of course more expensive.  It'll take a full 
Internet table, though, which is handy.


For AE resi deployments, I'd aggregate folks onto cheap 48 port switches 
then terminate onto a single pizza box router somewhere "less deep" in 
the network.  Distributed, in-field L3 termination doesn't mean you have 
to terminate L3 right at the customer-facing port.


--
Brandon Martin

RE: Last Mile Design

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, Aaron Gould wrote:


Not sure if this is what y'all are talking about, but I use lots of Juniper 
ACX5048 (previously Cisco ME3600 or ASR9000) for mpls-capable router edging in 
native ip/ethernet from ftth gpon network into mpls l2circuits and LOTS of 
vrf vrf for public ip, vrf for cgnat for private ip, vrf for voice...  I'm 
glad I did it.


Residential- ONT-ftth/gpon--OLT--ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
x---cgnat/inet--

Residential- DSL Modem-DSLAM---ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
y---cgnat/inet--

Residential- Cable Modem-CMTS---ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
z---cgnat/inet--


Residentialfiber media converter---L2 switch-- and then the rest of 
the setup you can re-use. AE isn't magic, insted of having an OLT,CMTS or 
DSLAM you just have an L2 ethernet switch.


They're mostly just media converters anyway. 15 years ago I deployed ADSL 
like this:


Residential---DSL modem---DSLAML3 switch

So DSL-modem---DSLAM was just doing RFC1843bridged over ATM. Just media 
converters. Same thing, just different type of media converter.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, Colton Conor wrote:

Just wondering, but what IP-capable MPLS switches are people using to 
deploy AE to residential internet connections? Most 48 port AE switches 
from repetuable vendors are crazy expensive, and I can't see how the ROI 
would ever work compared to GPON.


Why do you need MPLS? Most people just use regular L2 switches with some 
SAVI functionality (DHCP inspection, RA guard tec). When I did this, we 
happened to have an L3 switch there so I made each customer IPv6 (protocol 
based vlan) broadcast domain unique for each customer, and the L3 switch 
had built in DHCPv6-PD server. So just route a /51 to it, and it was a 
self contained IPv6 upstream router. For IPv4 we had a shared vlan and I 
didn't change that design at all.


For the FTTH deployment I am currently connected to, other end of my fiber 
is a big L2 chassi switch (~600 ports) with 10GE uplink to somewhere, and 
it does SAVI and then there is some BNG somewhere at the other end of this 
10GE uplink.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Eric Kuhnke]

A much more common configuration is a combination of a low cost 48-port L2
aggregation switch, something whitebox or similar to a Taiwanese OEM/ODM
such as edgecore, with a single 10GbE uplink to a small MPLS-capable
router. One 10Gbps link can fit a great many 1GbE active-E residential
customers in it.


On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:52 AM Colton Conor 
wrote:

> Aaron,
>
> Indeed the ACX5048 is a great box but expensive. I was talking about using
> the Gig-e ports of a 48 port switch to face subscribers, and asking what
> low cost IP-Capable MPLS capable 48 port switch fits that role. Basically
> an access switch for AE.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:10 AM Aaron Gould  wrote:
>
>> Not sure if this is what y'all are talking about, but I use lots of
>> Juniper ACX5048 (previously Cisco ME3600 or ASR9000) for mpls-capable
>> router edging in native ip/ethernet from ftth gpon network into mpls
>> l2circuits and LOTS of vrf vrf for public ip, vrf for cgnat for private
>> ip, vrf for voice...  I'm glad I did it.
>>
>>
>> Residential- ONT-ftth/gpon--OLT--ACX5048-mpls/vrf
>> x---cgnat/inet--
>>
>> Residential- DSL Modem-DSLAM---ACX5048-mpls/vrf
>> y---cgnat/inet--
>>
>> Residential- Cable Modem-CMTS---ACX5048-mpls/vrf
>> z---cgnat/inet--
>>
>>
>>
>> -Aaron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Last Mile Design

[Colton Conor]

Aaron,

Indeed the ACX5048 is a great box but expensive. I was talking about using
the Gig-e ports of a 48 port switch to face subscribers, and asking what
low cost IP-Capable MPLS capable 48 port switch fits that role. Basically
an access switch for AE.





On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:10 AM Aaron Gould  wrote:

> Not sure if this is what y'all are talking about, but I use lots of
> Juniper ACX5048 (previously Cisco ME3600 or ASR9000) for mpls-capable
> router edging in native ip/ethernet from ftth gpon network into mpls
> l2circuits and LOTS of vrf vrf for public ip, vrf for cgnat for private
> ip, vrf for voice...  I'm glad I did it.
>
>
> Residential- ONT-ftth/gpon--OLT--ACX5048-mpls/vrf
> x---cgnat/inet--
>
> Residential- DSL Modem-DSLAM---ACX5048-mpls/vrf
> y---cgnat/inet--
>
> Residential- Cable Modem-CMTS---ACX5048-mpls/vrf
> z---cgnat/inet--
>
>
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
>
>

RE: Last Mile Design

[Aaron Gould]

Not sure if this is what y'all are talking about, but I use lots of Juniper 
ACX5048 (previously Cisco ME3600 or ASR9000) for mpls-capable router edging in 
native ip/ethernet from ftth gpon network into mpls l2circuits and LOTS of 
vrf vrf for public ip, vrf for cgnat for private ip, vrf for voice...  I'm 
glad I did it.


Residential- ONT-ftth/gpon--OLT--ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
x---cgnat/inet--

Residential- DSL Modem-DSLAM---ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
y---cgnat/inet--

Residential- Cable Modem-CMTS---ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
z---cgnat/inet--



-Aaron

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 14/Feb/19 04:41, Colton Conor wrote:

> Just wondering, but what IP-capable MPLS switches are people using to
> deploy AE to residential internet connections? Most 48 port AE
> switches from repetuable vendors are crazy expensive, and I can't see
> how the ROI would ever work compared to GPON.

I'd never use an MPLS-capable router (even if it looks like a switch)
for Consumer customers. That math doesn't work.

As a pure FTTH Active-E AN, I still think the Brocade (Extreme) CER/CES
is a good box.

Cisco had the good sense of pushing out the ME2600X for this years ago,
and then opted to pull it. I can't find anything in their portfolio that
makes sense to me for this.

Juniper don't have anything on their end, either, that makes sense to me
for this.

So I'd probably still stick with the Brocade/Extreme.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Colton Conor]

Just wondering, but what IP-capable MPLS switches are people using to
deploy AE to residential internet connections? Most 48 port AE switches
from repetuable vendors are crazy expensive, and I can't see how the ROI
would ever work compared to GPON.



On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 4:25 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/Feb/19 18:07, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Bingo.  You're fine as long as your access L3 gear speaks MPLS.  That
> > does somewhat bump you out of the realm of "cheap L3 switch", but
> > there are still options.
>
> IP-capable switches that have little to no MPLS support would certainly
> be cheaper than one that does.
>
> But given the benefits of an MPLS-based Metro-E network vs. the
> traditional architecture, I find current prices somewhat reasonable.
>
> Mark.
>
>

Re: Last Mile Design

[Fletcher Kittredge]

For my fellow americans, LLUB stands for Local Loop UnBundling. What we
might call a Unbundled Network Element.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:49 AM Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> >> In any case, we are now building out our own fiber to cover the gaps
> >> left by TDC. Here the end user has to pay DKK 12,000 (USD 1,824 / EUR
> >> 1,608) one time fee and with that he gets everything including 5 years
> >> of free internet. This works out at DKK 200 / month including 25% VAT
> >> tax (USD 30 / EUR 27).
> >
> > Very interesting - don't you feel that an initial outlay like that could
> > put some potential customers off? Then again, per capita income in
> > Denmark, I'd imagine, could allow most to think about this. If all that
> > buys me Internet access for 5 years before I have to shell out anymore
> > wedge, I'd do it.
>
> In Sweden it's very common that people who live in detached house areas
> have to pay 1500-3000EUR to get attached to the fiber network as it's
> being built out. There are even bank loans you can get to pay for this,
> and pay it off over time. It's considered to be a good deal because it
> improves the value of the house as well as a huge improvement over having
> satellite-dish/terrestrial TV and ADSL/LTE for Internet access, now
> instead you can pay 30-40EUR a month to get a everything over the fiber.
>
> Now, I like the LLUB model where ISPs get access to the dark fiber all the
> way to the customer, and we do have that here as well, just not as
> commonly as I'd like. That's where https://www.bahnhof.se/villafiber/
> comes from where they offer 10GE for 50EUR a month. This is done on Telia
> LLUB:ed dark fiber which costs around 15EUR a month (regulated price).
> It's a great PR case for "dark fiber access rocks and bitstream sucks".
> You get IPv6 in there as well, which isn't commonly available on most of
> the bitstream access services (because not only do we not do PON, we don't
> do PPPoE either here in Sweden).
>
> So it's a mixed bag and pricing and functionality could definitely be
> better, but the FTTH rollout has gone quite well here and it's as usual
> 10-15 different factors contributing but the willingness of the population
> who lives in houses to fork out 1500-3000EUR for fiber install has made
> this a lot less cash flow misery for the ISPs that roll this out. I just
> wish there would have been a requirement for everybody to actually rent
> this dark fiber out (which there isn't unless you're one of the biggest
> players) because after paying those 1500-3000EUR and you ask the fiber
> installation company "who owns this fiber?" they say "we do" and if you
> ask "ok, I'd like it connected to someone else" they will say "huh? what
> do you mean". There is an unfortunate common conflation between the fiber
> optic cable and the services offered on it.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Last Mile Design [American Operators]

[Fletcher Kittredge]

I find the input to this discussion from non-US operators very useful.
Thank you. One flaw of America is our parochialism and isolation means we
don't learn from experiences elsewhere. We are so used to leading the world
in technology that we have very little exposure to advances outside of the
US. This is particularly true in the ISP world were demonstrably other
regions are ahead of the US.

Personally, I would be very interested in learning more about what is going
on in New Zealand and Scandinavia. Pointers to background reading would be
deeply appreciated, or even good search terms.

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Feb/19 16:21, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
 
>
> Speaking of an Asia-Pac example, Thailand, the government owned telco.
>
> https://www.tot.co.th/%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%8C%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%87%E0%B8%95/tot-fiber-2u
>
>
> Typically there are 1-3 different FTTH providers if you live in
> something that resembles a town, pay 50-100EUR installation fee, they
> show up within days to pull your new fiber and now you can have 150/50
> for around 20EUR a month.
>
> The price level has remained the same the past 5-6 years, but speed
> has gone up from 10/3 to 150/50 for the same monthly payment. Last
> year the 150/50 price level offering was 100/20 instead.

I can attest to this as I saw exactly the same thing in Malaysia, and
more so after I've been away these past couple of years.

The company I worked for at the time started rolling our GPON with the
top speed at 50Mbps for several hundred RM/month back in 2010. 9 years
later, they are selling 1Gbps @ RM99/month.

I suppose we can choke it down to the cost of living in the North
Western hemisphere being what it is, or some such reason :-).

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:


We have the same problem here in Africa too (and I saw it in Asia-Pac
while I was there as well)... non-telco-centric companies that deployed


Speaking of an Asia-Pac example, Thailand, the government owned telco.

https://www.tot.co.th/%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%8C%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%87%E0%B8%95/tot-fiber-2u

Typically there are 1-3 different FTTH providers if you live in something 
that resembles a town, pay 50-100EUR installation fee, they show up within 
days to pull your new fiber and now you can have 150/50 for around 20EUR a 
month.


The price level has remained the same the past 5-6 years, but speed has 
gone up from 10/3 to 150/50 for the same monthly payment. Last year the 
150/50 price level offering was 100/20 instead.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Feb/19 15:55, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

>  
>
> If they had just stayed at the L1 level and provided dark fiber for
> the amount of money mentioned before (for instance 10-15 EUR a month)
> then a lot of the problems wouldn't be there. They could have used the
> same organisation as before that now could do fiber as well, and
> that's that. Simple product, can't go wrong in a lot of weird ways.

We have the same problem here in Africa too (and I saw it in Asia-Pac
while I was there as well)... non-telco-centric companies that deployed
fibre to manage their non-telco infrastructure, now entering the telco
space to make use of the excess capacity, or because they want to be
part of the "next digital wave", with zero operational experience, and a
single-mindedness about one thing - "We will never sell dark fibre to
anyone".

Ultimately, they wise up or get bought by an operator. It's just a
question of how much patience you've got to spend.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:


someone else" they will say "huh? what do you mean". There is an
unfortunate common conflation between the fiber optic cable and the
services offered on it.


I get what you're saying, but sadly, someone has to take the risk to
build out a network. Unless you are a large incumbent like Telia,
chances are it will be company whose sole focus is just fibre network
construction, and anything higher up in the layers is of no interest to
them.


The problem here is that it might be an energy company or someone who 
isn't really into datacom. Now they're going to have to operate an active 
network to provide this "bitstream access" with DHCP relays, BCP38 support 
and all that comes with it. The result is that right now, most of these 
networks do not support IPv6 and they do not support > 1 gigabit/s speed 
(some don't even support more than 100-500 either).


If they had just stayed at the L1 level and provided dark fiber for the 
amount of money mentioned before (for instance 10-15 EUR a month) then a 
lot of the problems wouldn't be there. They could have used the same 
organisation as before that now could do fiber as well, and that's that. 
Simple product, can't go wrong in a lot of weird ways.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Feb/19 12:49, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
 
>
> In Sweden it's very common that people who live in detached house
> areas have to pay 1500-3000EUR to get attached to the fiber network as
> it's being built out. There are even bank loans you can get to pay for
> this, and pay it off over time. It's considered to be a good deal
> because it improves the value of the house as well as a huge
> improvement over having satellite-dish/terrestrial TV and ADSL/LTE for
> Internet access, now instead you can pay 30-40EUR a month to get a
> everything over the fiber.

Yes, makes sense, especially if you can get support to fund it.


>
> Now, I like the LLUB model where ISPs get access to the dark fiber all
> the way to the customer, and we do have that here as well, just not as
> commonly as I'd like. That's where https://www.bahnhof.se/villafiber/
> comes from where they offer 10GE for 50EUR a month. This is done on
> Telia LLUB:ed dark fiber which costs around 15EUR a month (regulated
> price). It's a great PR case for "dark fiber access rocks and
> bitstream sucks". You get IPv6 in there as well, which isn't commonly
> available on most of the bitstream access services (because not only
> do we not do PON, we don't do PPPoE either here in Sweden).

Cut the price of wine and meat and I'll move to this PPPoE-free land :-).


>
> So it's a mixed bag and pricing and functionality could definitely be
> better, but the FTTH rollout has gone quite well here and it's as
> usual 10-15 different factors contributing but the willingness of the
> population who lives in houses to fork out 1500-3000EUR for fiber
> install has made this a lot less cash flow misery for the ISPs that
> roll this out. I just wish there would have been a requirement for
> everybody to actually rent this dark fiber out (which there isn't
> unless you're one of the biggest players) because after paying those
> 1500-3000EUR and you ask the fiber installation company "who owns this
> fiber?" they say "we do" and if you ask "ok, I'd like it connected to
> someone else" they will say "huh? what do you mean". There is an
> unfortunate common conflation between the fiber optic cable and the
> services offered on it.

I get what you're saying, but sadly, someone has to take the risk to
build out a network. Unless you are a large incumbent like Telia,
chances are it will be company whose sole focus is just fibre network
construction, and anything higher up in the layers is of no interest to
them.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:


In any case, we are now building out our own fiber to cover the gaps
left by TDC. Here the end user has to pay DKK 12,000 (USD 1,824 / EUR
1,608) one time fee and with that he gets everything including 5 years
of free internet. This works out at DKK 200 / month including 25% VAT
tax (USD 30 / EUR 27).


Very interesting - don't you feel that an initial outlay like that could
put some potential customers off? Then again, per capita income in
Denmark, I'd imagine, could allow most to think about this. If all that
buys me Internet access for 5 years before I have to shell out anymore
wedge, I'd do it.


In Sweden it's very common that people who live in detached house areas 
have to pay 1500-3000EUR to get attached to the fiber network as it's 
being built out. There are even bank loans you can get to pay for this, 
and pay it off over time. It's considered to be a good deal because it 
improves the value of the house as well as a huge improvement over having 
satellite-dish/terrestrial TV and ADSL/LTE for Internet access, now 
instead you can pay 30-40EUR a month to get a everything over the fiber.


Now, I like the LLUB model where ISPs get access to the dark fiber all the 
way to the customer, and we do have that here as well, just not as 
commonly as I'd like. That's where https://www.bahnhof.se/villafiber/ 
comes from where they offer 10GE for 50EUR a month. This is done on Telia 
LLUB:ed dark fiber which costs around 15EUR a month (regulated price). 
It's a great PR case for "dark fiber access rocks and bitstream sucks". 
You get IPv6 in there as well, which isn't commonly available on most of 
the bitstream access services (because not only do we not do PON, we don't 
do PPPoE either here in Sweden).


So it's a mixed bag and pricing and functionality could definitely be 
better, but the FTTH rollout has gone quite well here and it's as usual 
10-15 different factors contributing but the willingness of the population 
who lives in houses to fork out 1500-3000EUR for fiber install has made 
this a lot less cash flow misery for the ISPs that roll this out. I just 
wish there would have been a requirement for everybody to actually rent 
this dark fiber out (which there isn't unless you're one of the biggest 
players) because after paying those 1500-3000EUR and you ask the fiber 
installation company "who owns this fiber?" they say "we do" and if you 
ask "ok, I'd like it connected to someone else" they will say "huh? what 
do you mean". There is an unfortunate common conflation between the fiber 
optic cable and the services offered on it.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Feb/19 11:31, Thomas Bellman wrote:

> I assume this is targeted towards single-family detached houses, where
> the family owns the house themselves.  Then they likely will view that
> as an investment in the house.  If you want to sell your house a couple
> of years later, and it doesn't have a fiber connection, buyers will be
> less attracted to the house, and want to pay less.

Makes sense.


> It might also be more expensive to connect after the initial buildout
> of an area.  I believe that's how the commercial companies in Sweden
> that build FTTH work.

Cities also aren't keen on opening up streets again, e.t.c.


>
> I can also note that where I live (Linköping, Sweden), the municipal
> fiber company charges ~2400 EUR to connect a single-family home to their
> network.  That does *not* include the laying of fiber on your property,
> from the street to your house.  And on top of that, you need to buy
> Internet connectivity from a normal commercial ISP at a monthly cost;
> the municipal fiber company only provides layer 2 connectivity between
> the home and the ISPs (currently 19 different ISPs).

Having an option, even though it could be pricey, is better than not
having anything at all.

Mark.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Last Mile Design

[Thomas Bellman]

On 2019-02-11 04:57 CET, Mark Tinka wrote:

> On 10/Feb/19 17:46, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
[...]
>> In any case, we are now building out our own fiber to cover the gaps
>> left by TDC. Here the end user has to pay DKK 12,000 (USD 1,824 / EUR
>> 1,608) one time fee and with that he gets everything including 5 years
>> of free internet. This works out at DKK 200 / month including 25% VAT
>> tax (USD 30 / EUR 27).

> Very interesting - don't you feel that an initial outlay like that could
> put some potential customers off? Then again, per capita income in
> Denmark, I'd imagine, could allow most to think about this. If all that
> buys me Internet access for 5 years before I have to shell out anymore
> wedge, I'd do it.

I assume this is targeted towards single-family detached houses, where
the family owns the house themselves.  Then they likely will view that
as an investment in the house.  If you want to sell your house a couple
of years later, and it doesn't have a fiber connection, buyers will be
less attracted to the house, and want to pay less.

It might also be more expensive to connect after the initial buildout
of an area.  I believe that's how the commercial companies in Sweden
that build FTTH work.

I can also note that where I live (Linköping, Sweden), the municipal
fiber company charges ~2400 EUR to connect a single-family home to their
network.  That does *not* include the laying of fiber on your property,
from the street to your house.  And on top of that, you need to buy
Internet connectivity from a normal commercial ISP at a monthly cost;
the municipal fiber company only provides layer 2 connectivity between
the home and the ISPs (currently 19 different ISPs).


/Bellman



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Feb/19 17:46, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
 
>
> As you get access to the fiber itself, nobody will care what speeds or
> even what technology you use on that fiber.

This has always been the end-goal:

  * How many IPTV channels do I get; not how much bandwidth do they require?
  * How many annual free Voice minutes do they get; not how many
concurrent calls can I fit into 128Kbps?
  * Is Netflix 4K streaming included; not how much bandwidth do I have
for streaming?
  * e.t.c.


>
> In any case, we are now building out our own fiber to cover the gaps
> left by TDC. Here the end user has to pay DKK 12,000 (USD 1,824 / EUR
> 1,608) one time fee and with that he gets everything including 5 years
> of free internet. This works out at DKK 200 / month including 25% VAT
> tax (USD 30 / EUR 27).

Very interesting - don't you feel that an initial outlay like that could
put some potential customers off? Then again, per capita income in
Denmark, I'd imagine, could allow most to think about this. If all that
buys me Internet access for 5 years before I have to shell out anymore
wedge, I'd do it.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Feb/19 16:30, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
 
>
> I also have available 250/50 via DOCSIS for approx the same EUR35.
>
> Basically access technology (AE/GPON/DOCSIS) doesn't matter a huge
> part, it's all about market and competition.

In essence, agreed.

For the most part, my 100Mbps does the job, despite it being "a bit too
priced". It could have been worse, but as things go in Africa at the
moment in this space, what I am paying for 100Mbps FTTH is actually very
reasonable.

The only reason for considering anything faster is when I upgrade my
standard HD TV to 4K/UHD, and then I can upgrade my Netflix subscription
to match :-).

But for the current use-case (a small LAN, family Internet access, VoD
streaming, a VoIP "land" line and my home office), I can't really
complain. I wouldn't know what to do with a Gig, but at least my
provider can get me there, should that day come.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Baldur Norddahl]

Hello

There are of course regions where monopoly has created even higher 
prices. But it should be fair to compare the Skåne region of Sweden 
directly with the greater Copenhagen area of Denmark, as those are 
separated by just a bridge.


In Denmark the government choose to regulate access to the fiber 
infrastructure owned by the incumbent operator TDC. The cheapest access 
is to "raw fiber" meaning the "alternate operator" gets access to an 
uninterrupted stretch of fiber between a POP and the end user. We can 
then connect our own equipment in both ends. My company started out by 
doing exactly that. We were the first to implement GPON technology on 
the TDC owned fiber. TDC was at the time using active ethernet, but have 
since started migrating everything to GPON as well. Maybe they got inspired.


The regulated prices are found here:

https://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/sites/default/files/media/endelig_prisafgoerelse_lraic_fastnet_2019.pdf

Sorry, that document is in danish. Maybe the swedish guys can understand 
some of it.


There are multiple prices, but the price we pay for most of our users is 
(1584-577)/12 = DKK 83.92 / month (USD 12.76 / EUR 11.24).


As you get access to the fiber itself, nobody will care what speeds or 
even what technology you use on that fiber.


It is also possible to rent access to so called "bit stream access". In 
this case TDC will provide a VPN connection to the end user and the 
operator will just have to provide the IP service. To compare with that 
250 Mbit/s swedish offering, we can lookup the price for 250 Mbit/s BSA 
service in the DONG area (this means mostly anything near Copenhagen): 
(2170-625.7)/12 = DKK 128.69 / month (USD 19.56 / EUR 17.24).


How much do you really need to add on top of that, if all you need to do 
is buy that $0.12/Mbps transit from HE.net and let TDC take care of 
everything else?


In any case, we are now building out our own fiber to cover the gaps 
left by TDC. Here the end user has to pay DKK 12,000 (USD 1,824 / EUR 
1,608) one time fee and with that he gets everything including 5 years 
of free internet. This works out at DKK 200 / month including 25% VAT 
tax (USD 30 / EUR 27).


I guarantee that it is not possible to build at this price without using 
PON technology. The network is fully funded by the users themselves and 
we have a paid off network after just 5 years.


Regards,

Baldur

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:

Fair point, my mate is on a Stokab-driven network, but EUR35 for 250Mbps 
is nothing to laugh at. I'm paying double that for 100Mbps in 
Johannesburg, on GPON.


I also have available 250/50 via DOCSIS for approx the same EUR35.

Basically access technology (AE/GPON/DOCSIS) doesn't matter a huge part, 
it's all about market and competition.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Feb/19 15:27, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

>  
> The general going rate for a 250/100 in Sweden is around 35EUR for the
> kind of service where you can then choose any ISP. Typically the
> first-mile provider takes the bulk of this money.
>
> In the cases where the proprty is on STOKAB fiber footprint (or
> equivalent) and you have a reasonably large MDU the landlord can
> contract an ISP to deliver ETTH to all apartments (typically CAT6 from
> switch in basement) where the going rate per apartment is around
> 5-15EUR a month for something like 100/100, 1G/100M or 1G/1G.

Which is what I know about having a mate that has a home in Stockholm.
So when Baldur mentioned that it was expensive, I was curious to
understand if we were talking about the same Sweden.

Fair point, my mate is on a Stokab-driven network, but EUR35 for 250Mbps
is nothing to laugh at. I'm paying double that for 100Mbps in
Johannesburg, on GPON.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Sun Feb 10, 2019 at 06:41:29PM +1300, Tony Wicks wrote:
> in New Zealand the access layer (GPON plus local transport)
> is largely regulated. Then Retail service providers buy the
> access component wholesale and add layer3, national backhaul
> etc. Retail for unlimited 1G/500M internet is about $75USD/month,
> for 100/50 you are looking at about 50USD/month

What is the wholesale price? Is the same for everyone?

In the UK the line is reasonably priced (wholesale around US$15/month
for FTTC, FTTP is rare and $25 to $80/month) but backhaul is a problem
as the incumbent charges around $40/ Mb/s /month.

You're not going to sell a service with that for a viable price
when retail prices are around $20/month for the popular products (40
and 80Mb/s). It skews the market to a hand full of large providers
who can afford to build their own backhaul


On the FTTH I've been involved in (www.balquhidder.net) I used
AE rather than GPON.

Positive factors were:
Simple, cheaper, CPE not needing replacing each time a new faster
wifi standard appears (the service is 1Gb/s).
Simpler build with dispersed properties.
Preference to maintain a (cheaper) ethernet switch vs propriertary GPON
Any business can be given dedicated 1G DIA and can independently upgrade
to 10G.
With a lot of farms/home working the business/domestic distinction
is fluid.

Negative:
Higher fibre costs but not huge vs GPON kit.
A fibre cut results in a lot more fibres to splice increasing
time to repair (96c on our trunks, would be 12c with GPON). This
is the only major AE issue.

brandon

RE: Last Mile Design

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, Tony Wicks wrote:

Certainly the devil is in the details, in New Zealand the access layer 
(GPON plus local transport) is largely regulated. Then Retail service 
providers buy the access component wholesale and add layer3, national 
backhaul etc. Retail for unlimited 1G/500M internet is about 
$75USD/month, for 100/50 you are looking at about 50USD/month. Key to 
this was the breakup of the incumbent into an access plus retail 
provider. This was done by allowing power (lines) companies in a few 
regions to win the access component contract.


The general going rate for a 250/100 in Sweden is around 35EUR for the 
kind of service where you can then choose any ISP. Typically the 
first-mile provider takes the bulk of this money.


In the cases where the proprty is on STOKAB fiber footprint (or 
equivalent) and you have a reasonably large MDU the landlord can contract 
an ISP to deliver ETTH to all apartments (typically CAT6 from switch in 
basement) where the going rate per apartment is around 5-15EUR a month for 
something like 100/100, 1G/100M or 1G/1G.


All of this with *PON nowhere to be seen. It's all AE over fiber or 
CAT5/6/7.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Feb/19 07:20, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> The FTTH rollout in Sweden has resulted in monopoly and the prices are
> high.

The prices are high?

I'd like to hear more on your thoughts about this.

Mark.

RE: Last Mile Design

[Tony Wicks]

Certainly the devil is in the details, in New Zealand the access layer (GPON 
plus local transport) is largely regulated. Then Retail service providers buy 
the access component wholesale and add layer3, national backhaul etc. Retail 
for unlimited 1G/500M internet is about $75USD/month, for 100/50 you are 
looking at about 50USD/month. Key to this was the breakup of the incumbent into 
an access plus retail provider. This was done by allowing power (lines) 
companies in a few regions to win the access component contract.





From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2019 6:21 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Last Mile Design



The FTTH rollout in Sweden has resulted in monopoly and the prices are high. 
Anything will work if you do not need to compete and you are getting financed 
by someone with money to spend.



On 2019-02-09 18:59 CET, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Last Mile Design

[Baldur Norddahl]

The FTTH rollout in Sweden has resulted in monopoly and the prices are
high. Anything will work if you do not need to compete and you are getting
financed by someone with money to spend.

lør. 9. feb. 2019 22.05 skrev Thomas Bellman :

> On 2019-02-09 18:59 CET, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> > For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to
> > the nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard
> > of. We have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them.
>
> However, large parts (probably even most) of our FTTH deployments have
> been built, and are owned, by our municipalities, not private companies.
> And have had government subsidies.  (Sometimes outsourced to normal
> commercial companies, but those companies then have the municipality as
> their customer, not us end-users.)
>
> Even without the subsidies, I expect that changes what kind of long-
> term view is taken on the investment.  A purely commercial company might
> want a return on their investments in just a few years, and if the fiber
> plant needs to be replaced in its entirety ten years from now, that will
> be the problem of a different CEO. :-)  A municipality (or a company
> wholly owned by the municipality) is used to build roads and water pipes
> with expected lifetimes of 50 years, and might build their fiber plants
> expecting them to live 20 years or longer.
>
>
> /Bellman
>
>

Re: Last Mile Design

[Brandon Martin]

On 2/9/19 1:20 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Though... getting power to 
the switches might be an issue, less so if you're deploying on power poles.


Just because you're on the power poles doesn't mean you can easily get 
permission or space to mount powered equipment on them let alone power 
at reasonable costs.


In areas with a commercial for-profit monopoly electric utility, just 
getting attachment space in the telecom zone at a reasonable price can 
be a big issue, and often putting stuff outside the telecom cable 
attachment zone is impossible.

--
Brandon Martin

RE: Last Mile Design

[Tony Wicks]

In New Zealand we have a mostly (any town of about 20k population or more) 
nationwide FTTH rollout underway (government/private partnership) that is 
mostly based on GPON. Both Point to Point and Dark Fibre are available as well. 
The service is layer 2 QinQ delivered to the retail service providers, (1/16 
split on the GPON) while the fibre infrastructure provider is barred from 
retail service sales. GPON speeds generally delivered are 100/50, 200/200 and 
1G/500. In general the real world result of this is a network that performs 
fantastically for both retail and SMB. Larger businesses are often delivered 
over single strand dark Fibre, but in practice the 1G/500M service works 
extremely well for most situations. 10G over the PON network is about to start 
a trial phase, but the ready availability of DF significantly reduces the 
urgency of this (8x10G over cheap CWDM fibre mux's makes for a nice solution).



>
>Agreed - we generally do not recommend the use of GPON for our Enterprise 
>customers. However, in cases where a 3rd party partner discloses their use of 
>GPON to deliver our tails, we dumb down the SLA's and >technical capabilities 
>and advise the customer accordingly.
>
>Mark.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Feb/19 21:12, Miles Fidelman wrote:

>  
>
> If you're marketing to business customers, or home office
> professionals, of families with multiple users that consume upstream
> bandwidth, AE gives you a lot of room for upside growth (assuming you
> provision the right kinds of fiber).

Agreed - we generally do not recommend the use of GPON for our
Enterprise customers. However, in cases where a 3rd party partner
discloses their use of GPON to deliver our tails, we dumb down the SLA's
and technical capabilities and advise the customer accordingly.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Feb/19 19:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

>   
>
> For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to
> the nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard
> of. We have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them.

Love what Stokab did/are doing.

A prime example of how well things can be done if gubbermints and the
private sector are efficient.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Feb/19 18:07, Brandon Martin wrote:

>  
>
> Bingo.  You're fine as long as your access L3 gear speaks MPLS.  That
> does somewhat bump you out of the realm of "cheap L3 switch", but
> there are still options.

IP-capable switches that have little to no MPLS support would certainly
be cheaper than one that does.

But given the benefits of an MPLS-based Metro-E network vs. the
traditional architecture, I find current prices somewhat reasonable.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Miles Fidelman]

On 2/9/19 4:04 PM, Thomas Bellman wrote:


On 2019-02-09 18:59 CET, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:


For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to
the nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard
of. We have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them.

However, large parts (probably even most) of our FTTH deployments have
been built, and are owned, by our municipalities, not private companies.
And have had government subsidies.  (Sometimes outsourced to normal
commercial companies, but those companies then have the municipality as
their customer, not us end-users.)

Even without the subsidies, I expect that changes what kind of long-
term view is taken on the investment.  A purely commercial company might
want a return on their investments in just a few years, and if the fiber
plant needs to be replaced in its entirety ten years from now, that will
be the problem of a different CEO. :-)  A municipality (or a company
wholly owned by the municipality) is used to build roads and water pipes
with expected lifetimes of 50 years, and might build their fiber plants
expecting them to live 20 years or longer.


Yes indeed, longer time horizon, but generally not so much subsidized as:

- having a big initial customer (municipal electric utility, water 
utility, the city or county) - a lot of municipal builds are essentially 
done for internal purposes, with service to the public as a bonus


- still, usually funded by bonds - long-term money, low rates - and 
maybe some money from the NTIA (also available to rural coops)


- a view of networks as infrastructure, with cost-recovery pricing, 
rather than as a revenue stream to milk (same as internal networks at a 
university or corporation)


By and large, there's a pretty good argument that we SHOULD be viewing 
broadband networks as infrastructure, with ownership & management to 
match.  (Fair disclosure, I used to promote that view as director of a 
non-profit policy shop, and as a consultant to municipal governments.  
I've also helped design & build big networks, for big customers - in my 
days at BBN - so it's an informed opinion :-).


Miles Fidelman


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

Re: Last Mile Design

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 2/9/19 1:13 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

GPON is 2.4 Gbps downstream and 1.2 Gbps upstream.


Okay.

I guess I've not thought about the fact that the GPON itself might be ~> 
is asymmetric.  From my naive point of view, I see a 1G/1G symmetric 
Ethernet hand off from the ONT to my equipment.  Hence my uninformed 
understanding.


Residential users are download heavy and more than 1:2. However there is 
a big difference between average, peak and micro burst. The conclusion 
is not simple.


ACK

We typically have 60+ users on each port. We sell 1000/1000 internet. 
And yet we only get good ratings for the speed.


I've learned that people are quick to judge harshly and slow to 
complement.  Or that good or better speeds ratings are lost to other 
things like price and / or other services offered, like native IPv6 or not.


I find that many, that are sceptical about the shared bandwidth of GPON, 
forget that a typical POP might only be fed by a 10 Gbps uplink. Usually 
this has much lower bandwidth per user than the GPON link.


I remember having these discussions in the early 2000's about ADSL vs 
Cable Modem.  I wonder if some of the earlier horror stories are 
unconsciously biasing people's opinions.  Or if people quite literally 
only look at / think about the directly attached network segment.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Last Mile Design

[Thomas Bellman]

On 2019-02-09 18:59 CET, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to
> the nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard
> of. We have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them.

However, large parts (probably even most) of our FTTH deployments have
been built, and are owned, by our municipalities, not private companies.
And have had government subsidies.  (Sometimes outsourced to normal
commercial companies, but those companies then have the municipality as
their customer, not us end-users.)

Even without the subsidies, I expect that changes what kind of long-
term view is taken on the investment.  A purely commercial company might
want a return on their investments in just a few years, and if the fiber
plant needs to be replaced in its entirety ten years from now, that will
be the problem of a different CEO. :-)  A municipality (or a company
wholly owned by the municipality) is used to build roads and water pipes
with expected lifetimes of 50 years, and might build their fiber plants
expecting them to live 20 years or longer.


/Bellman



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Last Mile Design

[Miles Fidelman]

There is that.


On 2/9/19 3:27 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
The biggest use of bandwidth as the IoT buzzword comes to fruition is 
exploits.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Miles Fidelman" 
*To: *"Mike Hammett" 
*Cc: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Saturday, February 9, 2019 2:26:13 PM
*Subject: *Re: Last Mile Design

I expect things are going to change as IoT takes off - security 
cameras, baby monitors, start to push video upstream - that makes a 
difference.



And then there are the efforts of cell carriers to push traffic onto 
home wifi - more and more facetime video will also add load.



Miles


On 2/9/19 3:14 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Electrical consumption of the equipment is different and then the
environmental conditioning that larger electronic load.

Let's not forget that actual consumer bit consumption changes very
little whether they have 20 megs or 2 gigs provisioned and available.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
--------
*From: *"Miles Fidelman" 
*To: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Saturday, February 9, 2019 12:20:36 PM
*Subject: *Re: Last Mile Design

Speaking of which, the Grant County Public Utility District
(Washington
State), has wired active ethernet all over their rural county.

Seems to me that the cost difference between splitters & switches
is a
pretty minor component of deploying FTTH - the costs are in the
trenching, and the fiber.  What you put on the poles, or in the lawn
furniture, is a pretty minor cost component. Though... getting
power to
the switches might be an issue, less so if you're deploying on
power poles.

Miles Fidelman

On 2/9/19 12:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> If I had to build a consumer broadband network and had the budget
>> (and owned the fibre) to do so, I'd definitely always choose
Active-E:
>
> For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome
here to
> the nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically
unheard
> of. We have millions of AE connected households. I live in one
of them.
>
-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra


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


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

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mike Hammett]

The biggest use of bandwidth as the IoT buzzword comes to fruition is exploits. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Miles Fidelman"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2019 2:26:13 PM 
Subject: Re: Last Mile Design 


I expect things are going to change as IoT takes off - security cameras, baby 
monitors, start to push video upstream - that makes a difference. 


And then there are the efforts of cell carriers to push traffic onto home wifi 
- more and more facetime video will also add load. 


Miles 



On 2/9/19 3:14 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Electrical consumption of the equipment is different and then the environmental 
conditioning that larger electronic load. 

Let's not forget that actual consumer bit consumption changes very little 
whether they have 20 megs or 2 gigs provisioned and available. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Miles Fidelman"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2019 12:20:36 PM 
Subject: Re: Last Mile Design 

Speaking of which, the Grant County Public Utility District (Washington 
State), has wired active ethernet all over their rural county. 

Seems to me that the cost difference between splitters & switches is a 
pretty minor component of deploying FTTH - the costs are in the 
trenching, and the fiber. What you put on the poles, or in the lawn 
furniture, is a pretty minor cost component. Though... getting power to 
the switches might be an issue, less so if you're deploying on power poles. 

Miles Fidelman 

On 2/9/19 12:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: 
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote: 
> 
>> If I had to build a consumer broadband network and had the budget 
>> (and owned the fibre) to do so, I'd definitely always choose Active-E: 
> 
> For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to 
> the nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard 
> of. We have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them. 
> 
-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. 
In practice, there is.  Yogi Berra 




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

Re: Last Mile Design

[Miles Fidelman]

I expect things are going to change as IoT takes off - security cameras, 
baby monitors, start to push video upstream - that makes a difference.



And then there are the efforts of cell carriers to push traffic onto 
home wifi - more and more facetime video will also add load.



Miles


On 2/9/19 3:14 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Electrical consumption of the equipment is different and then the 
environmental conditioning that larger electronic load.


Let's not forget that actual consumer bit consumption changes very 
little whether they have 20 megs or 2 gigs provisioned and available.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Miles Fidelman" 
*To: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Saturday, February 9, 2019 12:20:36 PM
*Subject: *Re: Last Mile Design

Speaking of which, the Grant County Public Utility District (Washington
State), has wired active ethernet all over their rural county.

Seems to me that the cost difference between splitters & switches is a
pretty minor component of deploying FTTH - the costs are in the
trenching, and the fiber.  What you put on the poles, or in the lawn
furniture, is a pretty minor cost component. Though... getting power to
the switches might be an issue, less so if you're deploying on power 
poles.


Miles Fidelman

On 2/9/19 12:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> If I had to build a consumer broadband network and had the budget
>> (and owned the fibre) to do so, I'd definitely always choose Active-E:
>
> For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to
> the nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard
> of. We have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them.
>
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra



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

Re: Last Mile Design

[Miles Fidelman]

On 2/9/19 2:51 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:


On 2/9/19 12:12 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
With early PON designs, upstream bandwidth was horrible. Not 
particularly useful if you're doing things like remote backup, or 
video chatting, or running a server (business grade service). GPON 
does better on upstream bandwidth, but it's still asymmetric.


Intriguing.

I would have not considered my municipal GPON to be asymmetric. Well, 
not as such.  Routinely, when I do speed tests I get better upstream 
speeds than I do downstream speeds.  (More below.)


If you're marketing to business customers, or home office 
professionals, of families with multiple users that consume upstream 
bandwidth, AE gives you a lot of room for upside growth (assuming you 
provision the right kinds of fiber).


Are you referring to the dedicated bandwidth between the CPU and the 
AE equipment?  Or the fact that bandwidth feeding the GPON and all 
subscribers is aggregate?



I'm thinking about the backside.  Generally there's a lot more 
downstream bandwidth to distribute, and not a lot of upstream 
bandwidth.  Makes a lot of sense if you're a content provider & expect 
your customers to be passive consumers (also, considering that a lot of 
that bandwidth might be used for things other than IP packets).




I have attributed the asymmetry in my speed tests to be that most 
people on my GPON are predominantly downloading, thus consuming 
aggregate download bandwidth.  Conversely, few are uploading more than 
requests, thus using relatively little of the aggregate upload bandwidth.


Probably the case.  But if you're in an area with a lot of home office 
users, or gamers, or business grade customers running servers, your 
experience might be different.




Do I see asymmetry?  Yes.  Is it truly asymmetric?  I don't think so.  
I think is just based on consumption of aggregate bandwidth.


I have no idea if this is normal for GPON or not.  Hence one of the 
reasons that I'm finding this thread enlightening.



The SPECS are asymmetric, as is the technology when you take into 
account allocation of bandwidth between downstream video & IP services.


Miles




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

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mike Hammett]

Electrical consumption of the equipment is different and then the environmental 
conditioning that larger electronic load. 

Let's not forget that actual consumer bit consumption changes very little 
whether they have 20 megs or 2 gigs provisioned and available. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Miles Fidelman"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2019 12:20:36 PM 
Subject: Re: Last Mile Design 

Speaking of which, the Grant County Public Utility District (Washington 
State), has wired active ethernet all over their rural county. 

Seems to me that the cost difference between splitters & switches is a 
pretty minor component of deploying FTTH - the costs are in the 
trenching, and the fiber. What you put on the poles, or in the lawn 
furniture, is a pretty minor cost component. Though... getting power to 
the switches might be an issue, less so if you're deploying on power poles. 

Miles Fidelman 

On 2/9/19 12:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: 
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote: 
> 
>> If I had to build a consumer broadband network and had the budget 
>> (and owned the fibre) to do so, I'd definitely always choose Active-E: 
> 
> For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to 
> the nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard 
> of. We have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them. 
> 
-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. 
In practice, there is.  Yogi Berra 

Re: Last Mile Design

[Baldur Norddahl]

GPON is 2.4 Gbps downstream and 1.2 Gbps upstream. Residential users are
download heavy and more than 1:2. However there is a big difference between
average, peak and micro burst. The conclusion is not simple.

We typically have 60+ users on each port. We sell 1000/1000 internet. And
yet we only get good ratings for the speed.

I find that many, that are sceptical about the shared bandwidth of GPON,
forget that a typical POP might only be fed by a 10 Gbps uplink. Usually
this has much lower bandwidth per user than the GPON link.

Regards

Baldur


lør. 9. feb. 2019 20.52 skrev Grant Taylor via NANOG :

> On 2/9/19 12:12 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > With early PON designs, upstream bandwidth was horrible. Not
> > particularly useful if you're doing things like remote backup, or video
> > chatting, or running a server (business grade service). GPON does better
> > on upstream bandwidth, but it's still asymmetric.
>
> Intriguing.
>
> I would have not considered my municipal GPON to be asymmetric.  Well,
> not as such.  Routinely, when I do speed tests I get better upstream
> speeds than I do downstream speeds.  (More below.)
>
> > If you're marketing to business customers, or home office professionals,
> > of families with multiple users that consume upstream bandwidth, AE
> > gives you a lot of room for upside growth (assuming you provision the
> > right kinds of fiber).
>
> Are you referring to the dedicated bandwidth between the CPU and the AE
> equipment?  Or the fact that bandwidth feeding the GPON and all
> subscribers is aggregate?
>
> I have attributed the asymmetry in my speed tests to be that most people
> on my GPON are predominantly downloading, thus consuming aggregate
> download bandwidth.  Conversely, few are uploading more than requests,
> thus using relatively little of the aggregate upload bandwidth.
>
> Do I see asymmetry?  Yes.  Is it truly asymmetric?  I don't think so.  I
> think is just based on consumption of aggregate bandwidth.
>
> I have no idea if this is normal for GPON or not.  Hence one of the
> reasons that I'm finding this thread enlightening.
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>
>

Re: Last Mile Design

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 2/9/19 12:12 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
With early PON designs, upstream bandwidth was horrible. Not 
particularly useful if you're doing things like remote backup, or video 
chatting, or running a server (business grade service). GPON does better 
on upstream bandwidth, but it's still asymmetric.


Intriguing.

I would have not considered my municipal GPON to be asymmetric.  Well, 
not as such.  Routinely, when I do speed tests I get better upstream 
speeds than I do downstream speeds.  (More below.)


If you're marketing to business customers, or home office professionals, 
of families with multiple users that consume upstream bandwidth, AE 
gives you a lot of room for upside growth (assuming you provision the 
right kinds of fiber).


Are you referring to the dedicated bandwidth between the CPU and the AE 
equipment?  Or the fact that bandwidth feeding the GPON and all 
subscribers is aggregate?


I have attributed the asymmetry in my speed tests to be that most people 
on my GPON are predominantly downloading, thus consuming aggregate 
download bandwidth.  Conversely, few are uploading more than requests, 
thus using relatively little of the aggregate upload bandwidth.


Do I see asymmetry?  Yes.  Is it truly asymmetric?  I don't think so.  I 
think is just based on consumption of aggregate bandwidth.


I have no idea if this is normal for GPON or not.  Hence one of the 
reasons that I'm finding this thread enlightening.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Last Mile Design

[Miles Fidelman]

On 2/9/19 1:44 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:



So let me ask this:  Are there any functional reasons to favor AE over 
PON /within/ the lifecycle of a deployment?  Does one methodology 
offer any significant advantages or disadvantages over the other?  If 
so, is (are) the pro(s) / con(s) applicable to specific use case(s)?


With early PON designs, upstream bandwidth was horrible. Not 
particularly useful if you're doing things like remote backup, or video 
chatting, or running a server (business grade service). GPON does better 
on upstream bandwidth, but it's still asymmetric.


If you're marketing to business customers, or home office professionals, 
of families with multiple users that consume upstream bandwidth, AE 
gives you a lot of room for upside growth (assuming you provision the 
right kinds of fiber).



---

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

Re: Last Mile Design

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 2/9/19 11:22 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Same for me. I like the architecture where the PON splitters are in 
powered roadside cabinets (even though the splitter is passive). That 
way the ISP can convert it to AE at any time they want. The architectures 
where PON has been hardcoded into the design has always felt like a huge 
risk regarding future developments.


I agree that PON with splitters where you can't put Active Ethernet 
equipment is largely equivalent to solution lock-in.  But is that in and 
of itself a bad thing?  Especially when viewed in within the lifecycle 
of the network?


From an outsider n00b point of view, the things that I'm reading it 
seems that people don't like about PON are largely it's inflexibility to 
be able to be converted to Active Ethernet without careful forethought 
and planning at construction time of the fiber network to allow it to 
change in the future.


In some ways, I've heard of the industry having this, or a very similar 
discussion for 25 years.  Twisted pair (Cat 3 vs Cat 5 vs Cat 5e vs Cat 
6) vs coax (RG 59 vs RG 6 vs F-11) vs fiber (OS1 vs OS2 vs OM1 vs OM2 vs 
OM3 vs OM4 vs OM5) vs RF (myriad of options).  Included to topology 
designs equating to lock-in.


However, none of this seems to be related to how functional any given 
design is.  I guess perhaps that the subject "Last Mile Design" does 
encourage discussions about topology and technology.


So let me ask this:  Are there any functional reasons to favor AE over 
PON /within/ the lifecycle of a deployment?  Does one methodology offer 
any significant advantages or disadvantages over the other?  If so, is 
(are) the pro(s) / con(s) applicable to specific use case(s)?


Remember that there are LOTs of ways to do things.  I'm trying to glean 
what makes one method better or worse than another, possibly for 
different types of deployments.





--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Last Mile Design

[Baldur Norddahl]

 It is not impossible just more expensive. Incidentally here in Denmark we
have TDC now converting active ethernet to GPON.

lør. 9. feb. 2019 19.01 skrev Mikael Abrahamsson :

> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> > If I had to build a consumer broadband network and had the budget (and
> > owned the fibre) to do so, I'd definitely always choose Active-E:
>
> For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to the
> nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard of. We
> have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>

Re: Last Mile Design

[Clayton Zekelman]

We have around 60,000 homes passed with GPON architecture.  I'm not 
really sure how we would have built that with active roadside 
cabinets, and still have been able to maintain any sort cost control.


If we did it with a home run individual fibre scheme hauled back to a 
central POP, the frame would have been massive and the power and 
cooling requirements would have made the entire project unfeasible.


Maybe the economics are different in other markets.

Because PON is so widely deployed, you can count on vendors coming up 
with capacity increases (NG, X, etc.) to support the installed base 
of infrastructure. Verizon alone will drive that market.


 From a purist point of view, AE is a nice idea, but it really isn't 
necessary for now or the foreseeable future.



At 01:22 PM 09/02/2019, Sander Steffann wrote:

Hi Mark,

> My preference, for the home, would be Active-E. But I do 
understand the economics that may support PON, and my position on 
that has softened over the years.


Same for me. I like the architecture where the PON splitters are in 
powered roadside cabinets (even though the splitter is passive). 
That way the ISP can convert it to AE at any time they want. The 
architectures where PON has been hardcoded into the design has 
always felt like a huge risk regarding future developments.


Cheers,
Sander




--

Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409

Re: Last Mile Design

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Mark,

> My preference, for the home, would be Active-E. But I do understand the 
> economics that may support PON, and my position on that has softened over the 
> years.

Same for me. I like the architecture where the PON splitters are in powered 
roadside cabinets (even though the splitter is passive). That way the ISP can 
convert it to AE at any time they want. The architectures where PON has been 
hardcoded into the design has always felt like a huge risk regarding future 
developments.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Last Mile Design

[Miles Fidelman]

Speaking of which, the Grant County Public Utility District (Washington 
State), has wired active ethernet all over their rural county.


Seems to me that the cost difference between splitters & switches is a 
pretty minor component of deploying FTTH - the costs are in the 
trenching, and the fiber.  What you put on the poles, or in the lawn 
furniture, is a pretty minor cost component. Though... getting power to 
the switches might be an issue, less so if you're deploying on power poles.


Miles Fidelman

On 2/9/19 12:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:

If I had to build a consumer broadband network and had the budget 
(and owned the fibre) to do so, I'd definitely always choose Active-E:


For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to 
the nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard 
of. We have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them.



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

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:

If I had to build a consumer broadband network and had the budget (and 
owned the fibre) to do so, I'd definitely always choose Active-E:   


For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to the 
nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard of. We 
have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Brandon Martin]

On 2/9/19 2:13 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:

My assumption is that you'd be running full IP/MPLS all the way into the
Access. In that case, what I'm saying is that you can run EoMPLS to
deliver the service.


Bingo.  You're fine as long as your access L3 gear speaks MPLS.  That 
does somewhat bump you out of the realm of "cheap L3 switch", but there 
are still options.

--
Brandon Martin

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

My preference, for the home, would be Active-E. But I do understand the
economics that may support PON, and my position on that has softened
over the years. My service provider delivers their FTTH service to me
via PON, and for the most part, it's been all good.

That said, I was particularly impressed with what CDE Lightband did in
Clarksville, Tennessee, where they deployed their FTTH network with
Active-E using Brocade to over 60,000 subscribers:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV1nYGl_Bjc

If I had to build a consumer broadband network and had the budget (and
owned the fibre) to do so, I'd definitely always choose Active-E:   

In South Africa, we have an access network operator that uses Active-E
primarily to deliver their service, making it perhaps the only FTTH
provider not using PON to do this. I find this quite fascinating.

Mark.

On 9/Feb/19 12:59, Ben Cannon wrote:
> I should probably have mentioned that in this sense I view “urban” as
> exclusive to “single family homes” - meaning I’m talking about high
> density modern urban with under grounding requirements - and high rise
> residential towers.
>
> We are the opposite, we are presently enterprise, midsize, and
> exotic-small business only, and have no residential arm or support
> structure (or SLA expectations, or standards or lack thereof) of a
> residential connection.
>
> -Ben.
>
> -Ben Cannon
> CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
> b...@6by7.net 
>
>
>
>> On Feb 9, 2019, at 2:54 AM, Baldur Norddahl
>> mailto:baldur.nordd...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> PON in urban areas absolutely makes sense. Maybe less in a high rise
>> area, where each building can have a small building wide network of
>> its own. But it in areas with single family homes PON is king.
>>
>> Our POPs can have up to 10 000 customers each. All on a single 96
>> fiber strand cable leading into the POP building. We have extra
>> ducts, but nothing that would allow us to change that to a point to
>> point network. That would require 100x that 96 fiber cable.
>>
>> With extra ducts it would be possible to rebuild from PON to point to
>> point. But it would require massive investments. Basically you would
>> have to invest all that we saved by building PON. For starters, you
>> would have to have many more POPs.
>>
>> And yes, there are splitters in the hand holes. This is not what
>> stops you from rebuilding from PON. It is the fact that we never paid
>> for extra fiber. The backbone in a sub area is typically build with a
>> 24 fiber strand cable. Because fibers are not free and are actually
>> quite expensive as the number of fibers grow and the distances get
>> longer. We can do a few point to point connections, for example if we
>> need to deliver a commercial service or for our own needs (to connect
>> POPs etc).
>>
>> We are not big on commercial services. But if we were, I would use
>> WDM splitters for that. Or the long awaited 10G PON if that ever
>> arrives and turns out at a price point that works.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Baldur
>>  
>

Re: Last Mile Design

[Ben Cannon]

I should probably have mentioned that in this sense I view “urban” as exclusive 
to “single family homes” - meaning I’m talking about high density modern urban 
with under grounding requirements - and high rise residential towers.

We are the opposite, we are presently enterprise, midsize, and exotic-small 
business only, and have no residential arm or support structure (or SLA 
expectations, or standards or lack thereof) of a residential connection.

-Ben.

-Ben Cannon
CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
b...@6by7.net 




> On Feb 9, 2019, at 2:54 AM, Baldur Norddahl  wrote:
> 
> PON in urban areas absolutely makes sense. Maybe less in a high rise area, 
> where each building can have a small building wide network of its own. But it 
> in areas with single family homes PON is king.
> 
> Our POPs can have up to 10 000 customers each. All on a single 96 fiber 
> strand cable leading into the POP building. We have extra ducts, but nothing 
> that would allow us to change that to a point to point network. That would 
> require 100x that 96 fiber cable.
> 
> With extra ducts it would be possible to rebuild from PON to point to point. 
> But it would require massive investments. Basically you would have to invest 
> all that we saved by building PON. For starters, you would have to have many 
> more POPs.
> 
> And yes, there are splitters in the hand holes. This is not what stops you 
> from rebuilding from PON. It is the fact that we never paid for extra fiber. 
> The backbone in a sub area is typically build with a 24 fiber strand cable. 
> Because fibers are not free and are actually quite expensive as the number of 
> fibers grow and the distances get longer. We can do a few point to point 
> connections, for example if we need to deliver a commercial service or for 
> our own needs (to connect POPs etc).
> 
> We are not big on commercial services. But if we were, I would use WDM 
> splitters for that. Or the long awaited 10G PON if that ever arrives and 
> turns out at a price point that works.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Baldur
>  

Re: Last Mile Design

[Baldur Norddahl]

PON in urban areas absolutely makes sense. Maybe less in a high rise area,
where each building can have a small building wide network of its own. But
it in areas with single family homes PON is king.

Our POPs can have up to 10 000 customers each. All on a single 96 fiber
strand cable leading into the POP building. We have extra ducts, but
nothing that would allow us to change that to a point to point network.
That would require 100x that 96 fiber cable.

With extra ducts it would be possible to rebuild from PON to point to
point. But it would require massive investments. Basically you would have
to invest all that we saved by building PON. For starters, you would have
to have many more POPs.

And yes, there are splitters in the hand holes. This is not what stops you
from rebuilding from PON. It is the fact that we never paid for extra
fiber. The backbone in a sub area is typically build with a 24 fiber strand
cable. Because fibers are not free and are actually quite expensive as the
number of fibers grow and the distances get longer. We can do a few point
to point connections, for example if we need to deliver a commercial
service or for our own needs (to connect POPs etc).

We are not big on commercial services. But if we were, I would use WDM
splitters for that. Or the long awaited 10G PON if that ever arrives and
turns out at a price point that works.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Last Mile Design

[Ben Cannon]

PON in my view is well suited for residential distribution and use profiles.  
10G/XG-PON at 10gig/2.5gig is a pretty serious residential connection and even 
2.5/1 is pretty great for residential 1/1 symmetric service.

That said, I would in urban environments not recommend designing for GPON 
physical cable plan - go AE on your cabling.  Play with PON if you want more 
headaches here with little redeeming features IMO.   Instead, design 
rings/meshes, and think redundant/diverse path and entry/distro.  There’s a 
reason telco standards work. These days there’s little reason to separate 
residential vs commercial traffic, it’s all packets at our scale.  Our core is 
agnostic and switches anything we throw it at hardware speed, and it’s HA (min 
2 core routers in every POP - even some customer buildings have 
diverse/redundant fiber entry from us now, back to multiple $alldayallnightjob 
POPs no less, in some cases to meet regulatory minimum standards compliance.  
All of our DCs are built this way.Fact is, if you want a network to be fast 
as hell, and never ever go down, think redundant everything with diversity.  

That said, for rural distribution, especially cheap aerial residential services 
in far flung locations - there’s literally nothing finer and faster and more 
cost effective than GPON - which is HUGELY important for reaching the final 15 
MILLION Americans that do not have broadband internet connections at all.

For those people, GPON can be nothing short of utterly life transforming.

-Ben Cannon
CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
b...@6by7.net 




> On Feb 8, 2019, at 10:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Chris Gross wrote:
> 
>> For a lot of us, PONs are a way of life and may not even have any 100G 
>> capable devices in our network, muchless enough to make our money on. While 
>> you may be so "lucky" to "never really take it seriously", it is supporting 
>> hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of homes in the US.
>> 
>> PON is the lifeblood if many rural communities. I'm luckily to have a 
>> healthy mix of PON and AE operations since I'm located next to cities. But 
>> I've met cooperatives in the middle of no where with super low density where 
>> it's 6 people + 2 donkeys on staff. AE would never work there, but PONs 
>> allow them cheap and available broadband options.
>> 
>> Unless someone wants to give enough funding to run AE to people's homes, 
>> PONs will continue to allow many communities to have more than cellular 
>> internet access options, if that.
> 
> PON and AE both have their strengths and weakness and make sense for 
> different deployment scenarios. My biggest problem with PON is that it seems 
> some operators build their fiber plant for PON for all deployment cases and 
> then it's extremely hard to back out of it and switch to AE. If you have AE 
> you can switch to PON fairly easily, but not the other way around if you've 
> put splitters in the manholes.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/Feb/19 19:44, Brandon Martin wrote:

>  
>
> I'm thinking that, if you push L3 termination all the way out to the
> last access node (FTTN DSLAM being the obvious one here), you may then
> lack a decent way to haul pure Ethernet back to their head-end.  If
> your L3 termination also supports MPLS, or Q-in-Q, you're probably
> fine.  The latter might negate the potential advantages of distributed
> L3 from a routing POV by forcing you to again run STP or similar.
>
> If you're doing L3 termination a bit more centralized, even if not
> with big behemoths on a "one per super-metro" basis, this may not be a
> problem at all.  HFC and FTTx PONs might end up being like that
> inherently just because of the nature of the plant and tech that runs
> on it.

My assumption is that you'd be running full IP/MPLS all the way into the
Access. In that case, what I'm saying is that you can run EoMPLS to
deliver the service.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Chris Gross wrote:

For a lot of us, PONs are a way of life and may not even have any 100G 
capable devices in our network, muchless enough to make our money on. 
While you may be so "lucky" to "never really take it seriously", it is 
supporting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of homes in the US.


PON is the lifeblood if many rural communities. I'm luckily to have a 
healthy mix of PON and AE operations since I'm located next to cities. 
But I've met cooperatives in the middle of no where with super low 
density where it's 6 people + 2 donkeys on staff. AE would never work 
there, but PONs allow them cheap and available broadband options.


Unless someone wants to give enough funding to run AE to people's homes, 
PONs will continue to allow many communities to have more than cellular 
internet access options, if that.


PON and AE both have their strengths and weakness and make sense for 
different deployment scenarios. My biggest problem with PON is that it 
seems some operators build their fiber plant for PON for all deployment 
cases and then it's extremely hard to back out of it and switch to AE. If 
you have AE you can switch to PON fairly easily, but not the other way 
around if you've put splitters in the manholes.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Last Mile Design

[Chris Gross]

For a lot of us, PONs are a way of life and may not even have any 100G capable 
devices in our network, muchless enough to make our money on. While you may be 
so "lucky" to "never really take it seriously", it is supporting hundreds of 
thousands, if not millions, of homes in the US.

PON is the lifeblood if many rural communities. I'm luckily to have a healthy 
mix of PON and AE operations since I'm located next to cities. But I've met 
cooperatives in the middle of no where with super low density where it's 6 
people + 2 donkeys on staff. AE would never work there, but PONs allow them 
cheap and available broadband options.

Unless someone wants to give enough funding to run AE to people's homes, PONs 
will continue to allow many communities to have more than cellular internet 
access options, if that.

This email has been sent from my phone. Please excuse any brevity, typos, or 
lack of formality.

From: Aaron 
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 16:03
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Last Mile Design

My statement was meant to be tongue in cheek.  We deliver 1G to the home
free of charge and make our money on the 10,40 and 100G connections.  We
haven't been able to deliver those capacities over PON so we've never
really taken it seriously.  As with everything else, you're use case and
economics may vary.

Aaron


On 2/8/2019 2:31 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
> It also significantly reduces the requirement to distribute active equipment 
> into the field while massively reducing the feeder fibre requirement. Point 
> to point has its place to be sure, but mass market FTTH is not viable without 
> PON's economics.
>
>
> On 02/08/2019 12:48 PM, Aaron wrote:
>> I've always felt PON is a tool for people who don't know how to design a
>> proper network.
> Why is that?
>
> I always thought PON was a technology that reduced the number of active
> ports, thus altering the port cost per subscriber significantly by not
> actually needing dedicated ports.
>
>
>

--

Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wholesaleinternet.comdata=02%7C01%7C%7C4dd5a2f0e3104555418808d68e08f0ac%7C453303889ca9424bbe1a29721272041d%7C1%7C0%7C636852566386965544sdata=1ICTe0CT6jJ1zyXEzxKK1epS%2BBxFhqAS1Yyv%2FFdAD7k%3Dreserved=0

Re: Last Mile Design

[David Ratkay]

I want to work in a ISP environment and all the input here has helped.
Thanks!

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 6:46 PM David Ratkay  I am not sure if this is a easy question to answer. But I am wondering
> what ISP's do for their residential and business customers for designing
> POP's that they usually access to get theur traffic into a given ISP and
> beyond. Is it usually a L1/L2 connection from the CE to the last mile POP?
> Or L2 even within the last mile POP. Do you just have POP's delegated to
> residential users and a separate POP for business users. Or is it done on a
> geographical basis. So for this region of City-A we manage both residential
> and business customers at this same POP.
>

RE: Last Mile Design

[Aaron Gould]

We do 1 gig over pon (gpon)...Calix E7 (olt)

Yes, it's my understanding, and I agree with previous post response, that PON 
is for using 1 fiber strand to a home (bidir , different wavelengths for xmt 
and rcv) and then I believe it even gets prism'd (however the heck they do it) 
into a 1/32 split or something like that so that you don't have to run direct 
fibers from every home back to the CO

...AND, in a rural area, geez, those are lggg fiber runs so a pon 
cabinet in the field helps greatly

Yes, 2.4g down and  1.2 g up is a concern when you've sold (oversubscribed) 
more bw than that 

We are concerned and looking for ways to overcome this and keep up with 
subscriber bw demands all the time ... fun and job secure

-Aaron another Aaron :) 



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Aaron
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 3:02 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Last Mile Design

My statement was meant to be tongue in cheek.  We deliver 1G to the home 
free of charge and make our money on the 10,40 and 100G connections.  We 
haven't been able to deliver those capacities over PON so we've never 
really taken it seriously.  As with everything else, you're use case and 
economics may vary.

Aaron


On 2/8/2019 2:31 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
> It also significantly reduces the requirement to distribute active equipment 
> into the field while massively reducing the feeder fibre requirement. Point 
> to point has its place to be sure, but mass market FTTH is not viable without 
> PON's economics.
>
>
> On 02/08/2019 12:48 PM, Aaron wrote:
>> I've always felt PON is a tool for people who don't know how to design a
>> proper network.
> Why is that?
>
> I always thought PON was a technology that reduced the number of active
> ports, thus altering the port cost per subscriber significantly by not
> actually needing dedicated ports.
>
>
>

-- 

Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com

Re: Last Mile Design

[Aaron]

My statement was meant to be tongue in cheek.  We deliver 1G to the home 
free of charge and make our money on the 10,40 and 100G connections.  We 
haven't been able to deliver those capacities over PON so we've never 
really taken it seriously.  As with everything else, you're use case and 
economics may vary.


Aaron


On 2/8/2019 2:31 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:

It also significantly reduces the requirement to distribute active equipment 
into the field while massively reducing the feeder fibre requirement. Point to 
point has its place to be sure, but mass market FTTH is not viable without 
PON's economics.


On 02/08/2019 12:48 PM, Aaron wrote:

I've always felt PON is a tool for people who don't know how to design a
proper network.

Why is that?

I always thought PON was a technology that reduced the number of active
ports, thus altering the port cost per subscriber significantly by not
actually needing dedicated ports.





--

Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com

RE: Last Mile Design

[Tony Wicks]

It also significantly reduces the requirement to distribute active equipment 
into the field while massively reducing the feeder fibre requirement. Point to 
point has its place to be sure, but mass market FTTH is not viable without 
PON's economics.


On 02/08/2019 12:48 PM, Aaron wrote:
> I've always felt PON is a tool for people who don't know how to design a 
> proper network.

Why is that?

I always thought PON was a technology that reduced the number of active
ports, thus altering the port cost per subscriber significantly by not
actually needing dedicated ports.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Last Mile Design

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 02/08/2019 12:48 PM, Aaron wrote:
I've always felt PON is a tool for people who don't know how to design a 
proper network.


Why is that?

I always thought PON was a technology that reduced the number of active 
ports, thus altering the port cost per subscriber significantly by not 
actually needing dedicated ports.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Last Mile Design

[Aaron]

I've always felt PON is a tool for people who don't know how to design a 
proper network.


Aaron


On 2/8/2019 1:38 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Good for you.  None of this PON splitter nonsense.

Miles Fidelman

On 2/8/19 2:17 PM, Aaron wrote:
We run direct fiber connections to each house and business and 
terminate them on the same switches.  Our switches are housed in 
small "huts" that are dispersed throughout the city and each handle a 
specific area then the huts are all connected in a ring. It really 
comes down to what your geography looks like.


Aaron


On 2/7/2019 5:46 PM, David Ratkay wrote:
I am not sure if this is a easy question to answer. But I am 
wondering what ISP's do for their residential and business customers 
for designing POP's that they usually access to get theur traffic 
into a given ISP and beyond. Is it usually a L1/L2 connection from 
the CE to the last mile POP? Or L2 even within the last mile POP. Do 
you just have POP's delegated to residential users and a separate 
POP for business users. Or is it done on a geographical basis. So 
for this region of City-A we manage both residential and business 
customers at this same POP.




--

Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com

Re: Last Mile Design

[Miles Fidelman]

Good for you.  None of this PON splitter nonsense.

Miles Fidelman

On 2/8/19 2:17 PM, Aaron wrote:
We run direct fiber connections to each house and business and 
terminate them on the same switches.  Our switches are housed in small 
"huts" that are dispersed throughout the city and each handle a 
specific area then the huts are all connected in a ring. It really 
comes down to what your geography looks like.


Aaron


On 2/7/2019 5:46 PM, David Ratkay wrote:
I am not sure if this is a easy question to answer. But I am 
wondering what ISP's do for their residential and business customers 
for designing POP's that they usually access to get theur traffic 
into a given ISP and beyond. Is it usually a L1/L2 connection from 
the CE to the last mile POP? Or L2 even within the last mile POP. Do 
you just have POP's delegated to residential users and a separate POP 
for business users. Or is it done on a geographical basis. So for 
this region of City-A we manage both residential and business 
customers at this same POP.



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

Re: Last Mile Design

[Aaron]

We run direct fiber connections to each house and business and terminate 
them on the same switches.  Our switches are housed in small "huts" that 
are dispersed throughout the city and each handle a specific area then 
the huts are all connected in a ring. It really comes down to what your 
geography looks like.


Aaron


On 2/7/2019 5:46 PM, David Ratkay wrote:
I am not sure if this is a easy question to answer. But I am wondering 
what ISP's do for their residential and business customers for 
designing POP's that they usually access to get theur traffic into a 
given ISP and beyond. Is it usually a L1/L2 connection from the CE to 
the last mile POP? Or L2 even within the last mile POP. Do you just 
have POP's delegated to residential users and a separate POP for 
business users. Or is it done on a geographical basis. So for this 
region of City-A we manage both residential and business customers at 
this same POP.


--

Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com

Re: Last Mile Design

[Brandon Martin]

On 2/8/19 2:07 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:


I do like to separate SMB and Resi traffic, but it's mostly for
customer service reasons rather than technical reasons.  That
separation rarely entails separate equipment but rather just VLANs and
PCPs, IP subnets, etc.


Many years ago, I did consider running both Consumer and Enterprise
traffic on one router - and for purposes of pride, I'm sure the major
vendors would like to boast that they could allow you to do this. But in
practice, it's probably a bad idea... BNG's have too many moving parts,
and for some platforms, there is actually special code optimized for BNG
deployments that may have an impact on traditional Enterprise or Service
Provider customers.

So I would separate BNG's from regular edge routers.


Enterprise DIA is a whole different beast.  For sure, that stays 
separate at least for now.  Some of the forthcoming PON technologies 
have so much bandwidth that it may become attractive to start merging 
them at the access layer for smaller customers, and then I guess we'll 
have to see what the best way to handle L3 termination on that is.


If anything, just ensuring that the (often) separate tech teams have the 
proper access to it and knowledge of what the others are doing might be 
a bit of an issue.




If you're in a position where you want to or have to offer competitors
access to your network to sell service directly to customers, that's
also going to potentially really change the situation.


Why? Chances are they will require Ethernet access between their
customer and their head-end, which is a typical scenario.


I'm thinking that, if you push L3 termination all the way out to the 
last access node (FTTN DSLAM being the obvious one here), you may then 
lack a decent way to haul pure Ethernet back to their head-end.  If your 
L3 termination also supports MPLS, or Q-in-Q, you're probably fine.  The 
latter might negate the potential advantages of distributed L3 from a 
routing POV by forcing you to again run STP or similar.


If you're doing L3 termination a bit more centralized, even if not with 
big behemoths on a "one per super-metro" basis, this may not be a 
problem at all.  HFC and FTTx PONs might end up being like that 
inherently just because of the nature of the plant and tech that runs on it.

--
Brandon Martin

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/Feb/19 02:37, Brandon Martin wrote:
 
>
> I've never been overly fond of the Ma' Bell style designs with
> humongous routers in centralized areas and L2-only haul out to the
> last-mile termination.  The failure modes of such systems often result
> in hilariously large outages that are super visible publicly and put
> egg on peoples' face.  A neighborhood being down is a little easier to
> manage from a customer relations POV, I think, and it's easy to make
> that happen with distributed L3 termination.

We don't do Consumer services, but for our Enterprise customers, we run
IP/MPLS all the way into the Access and deliver services directly off
those devices. Like you, we don't like centralizing services for the
very same reasons that you state.

That said, I've often considered different architectures if we did
provide Consumer services - from centralized BNG's on a per-region or
per-town basis, as well as de-centralized BNG's on smaller routers (back
when the MX80 had just launched, but obviously not fit-for-purpose in
2019). Ultimately, I can't find a feasible way to deliver Consumer
services scalably and inexpensively in a de-centralized model. But, I
suppose, given the nature of the product and the ARPU, reasonable
centralization for such customers is not a bad thing.


> There are some smaller, somewhat cost-effective full-touch routers
> that can help bridge the gap between those two options, though. 
> Juniper's MX104 and the Cisco ASR1k series are some reasonable options
> for that, but it'll definitely cost more than a cheap L3 switch for a
> given amount of bandwidth.

Our poison is the Cisco ASR920 and Juniper MX204. I am yet to find any
other platforms with the size, density, capability and price for full
IP/MPLS capability in the Access.


>
> I do like to separate SMB and Resi traffic, but it's mostly for
> customer service reasons rather than technical reasons.  That
> separation rarely entails separate equipment but rather just VLANs and
> PCPs, IP subnets, etc.

Many years ago, I did consider running both Consumer and Enterprise
traffic on one router - and for purposes of pride, I'm sure the major
vendors would like to boast that they could allow you to do this. But in
practice, it's probably a bad idea... BNG's have too many moving parts,
and for some platforms, there is actually special code optimized for BNG
deployments that may have an impact on traditional Enterprise or Service
Provider customers.

So I would separate BNG's from regular edge routers.

>
> Now if you want to sell DIA type services where you can offer full BGP
> tables, MPLS interconnection, etc., that's another matter.  A need for
> IPv4 CGNAT may, as well, but things like 464XLAT, lw4o6, MAP, etc. can
> fix that up if you're willing to put some extra requirements on your
> CPE/RG.

We do all this in the Access on our ASR920's and MX204's (once we start
deploying them).

>
> If you're in a position where you want to or have to offer competitors
> access to your network to sell service directly to customers, that's
> also going to potentially really change the situation.

Why? Chances are they will require Ethernet access between their
customer and their head-end, which is a typical scenario.

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 18:46:40 -0500, David Ratkay said:

> I am not sure if this is a easy question to answer. 

Actually,trivial to answer: "It depends".  Often due to "hysterical raisins".

> even within the last mile POP. Do you just have POP's delegated to
> residential users and a separate POP for business users. Or is it done on a
> geographical basis. So for this region of City-A we manage both residential
> and business customers at this same POP.

How well is servicing both out of one POP working for you?  If what you have in
City A is working for you, your business plan, and your customers, don't change 
it :)

Some companies may want 2 POPs because one area of the city is highly
commercial/industrial and all the home eyeball networks are on the other side
of town. Or they're DSL providers in a not densely packed town, and needed two
POPs to get all the customers inside the cable foot limit for sane DSL. Or they
had their residential POP already up and running, and then acquired a business
ISP that already had a POP.  Or they designed it based on what dark fiber or
coller was already in conduits or up on poles. I'm sure that at least one DSL
provider ended up with two POPs due to the headaches of trying to get one POP
past the incumbent, and there's probably somebody who ended up with one POP
because it was impossible to set up 2 with the incumbent...

Re: Last Mile Design

[Brandon Martin]

On 2/7/19 6:46 PM, David Ratkay wrote:
I am not sure if this is a easy question to answer. But I am wondering 
what ISP's do for their residential and business customers for designing 
POP's that they usually access to get theur traffic into a given ISP and 
beyond. Is it usually a L1/L2 connection from the CE to the last mile 
POP? Or L2 even within the last mile POP. Do you just have POP's 
delegated to residential users and a separate POP for business users. Or 
is it done on a geographical basis. So for this region of City-A we 
manage both residential and business customers at this same POP.


L3 switches that can handle a reasonable number of routes/VLANs/MACs and 
lots of bandwidth are so cheap that I'm fond of pushing L3 fairly deep 
into the access network with them in many cases.  Not much benefit to 
that if you prefer centralized BRAS/BNG style boxes with all the bells 
and whistles to take the traffic management away from your last-mile 
gear, though.  So you need access gear with its own traffic management 
capabilities and potentially L2 filtering of higher level traffic (DHCP 
snooping, ARP/ND inspection, RA guard, TCP/UDP port blocking, etc.) and 
that may limit your options or force you to terminate fewer customers at 
a PoP than you'd like to stay within the capabilities of a typical L3 
switch product.


I've never been overly fond of the Ma' Bell style designs with humongous 
routers in centralized areas and L2-only haul out to the last-mile 
termination.  The failure modes of such systems often result in 
hilariously large outages that are super visible publicly and put egg on 
peoples' face.  A neighborhood being down is a little easier to manage 
from a customer relations POV, I think, and it's easy to make that 
happen with distributed L3 termination.


I've also found it easier to handle multiple backhaul paths at L3 than 
L2 since spanning tree is such a pain in the butt, but E-RPS/G.8032, if 
you get switches that support it, can also be very handy.


There are some smaller, somewhat cost-effective full-touch routers that 
can help bridge the gap between those two options, though.  Juniper's 
MX104 and the Cisco ASR1k series are some reasonable options for that, 
but it'll definitely cost more than a cheap L3 switch for a given amount 
of bandwidth.


I do like to separate SMB and Resi traffic, but it's mostly for customer 
service reasons rather than technical reasons.  That separation rarely 
entails separate equipment but rather just VLANs and PCPs, IP subnets, etc.


Now if you want to sell DIA type services where you can offer full BGP 
tables, MPLS interconnection, etc., that's another matter.  A need for 
IPv4 CGNAT may, as well, but things like 464XLAT, lw4o6, MAP, etc. can 
fix that up if you're willing to put some extra requirements on your CPE/RG.


If you're in a position where you want to or have to offer competitors 
access to your network to sell service directly to customers, that's 
also going to potentially really change the situation.

--
Brandon Martin

Last Mile Design

[David Ratkay]

I am not sure if this is a easy question to answer. But I am wondering what
ISP's do for their residential and business customers for designing POP's
that they usually access to get theur traffic into a given ISP and beyond.
Is it usually a L1/L2 connection from the CE to the last mile POP? Or L2
even within the last mile POP. Do you just have POP's delegated to
residential users and a separate POP for business users. Or is it done on a
geographical basis. So for this region of City-A we manage both residential
and business customers at this same POP.