Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Feb 1, 2013, at 21:22 , Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > On 13-02-01 22:52, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal >> greenfield >> plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. > > Not so irrelevant. If the munic

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-01 22:52, Owen DeLong wrote: > Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal > greenfield > plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Not so irrelevant. If the municipality wishes to attract as many competitive ISPs as possible, it wa

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Ok, serious question - How is GPON's downstream AES encryption keying handled? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > OK... Like Einstein, math is not my strong suit. > > Unfortunately, I don't have his prowess with physics, either. > > Owen A bit here, a bit there... Hey, dB is a plural of Bits! -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

OK... Like Einstein, math is not my strong suit. Unfortunately, I don't have his prowess with physics, either. Owen On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:59 , Henri Hannula wrote: > You propably calculated the second one (5 - 2.34 -16)-15 + 0.26 since you got > -28.08 > > (5 - 16 - 2.6) - 15 = -28.6 > (5 -

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:17 , Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > On 13-02-01 16:03, Jason Baugher wrote: > >> The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not >> technical. > > It also has to do with existing fibre infrastructure. If a Telco has > already adopted a "fibre to a n

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

In a message written on Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 03:29:32PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote: > You're basing your math off of some incorrect assumptions about PON. I'm I'd like to know more about the PON limitations, while I understand the 10,000 foot view, some of the rubber hitting the road issues are a

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

- Original Message - > From: "Brandon Butterworth" > 3. no home run fibres means no competitors running their own > GPON or Ethernet. Why invest in making it easier for the > competition Because I don't have any competitors; I *am the municipality*. All the possible competitors *are my

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

- Original Message - > From: "Frank Bulk (iname.com)" > What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. > Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points > are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than > one provider, and

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Feb 1 16:11:17 > 2013 > Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? > From: Owen DeLong > Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:59:54 -0800 > To: Jason Baugher > Cc: NANOG > > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > > > It's still a 23dB los

VS: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

You propably calculated the second one (5 - 2.34 -16)-15 + 0.26 since you got -28.08 (5 - 16 - 2.6) - 15 = -28.6 (5 - 2.34 - 16) - 15 - 0.26 = -28.6 -Hena -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Lähetetty: 2. helmikuuta 2013 0:00 Vastaanottaja: Jason Baug

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

For us, it would be the economics of the whole thing. When a 16x19.5 EDFA runs around $20k, it's much more cost effective to combine 1550nm onto 16 PON's than onto 16 AE runs. Unless the equipment costs were to fall drastically, there's no way it would ever fly. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Fr

RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Fletcher: Many rural LECs are homerunning their fiber back to the CO, such that the optical splitters are only in the CO. It gives them one management point, the highest possible efficiency (you can maximize any every splitter and therefore PON) and a pathway to ActiveE. Frank -Original Mes

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

IIRC, there is some issue with bleedover of either the forward or return (optically modulated) RF wavelength with the data wavelength. Perhaps with better lasers this could be overcome in the future. Frank From: Jason Baugher [mailto:ja...@thebaughers.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013

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

Management has asked us why we can't do RF overlay on our AE system. :) We've had to explain a few times why that would be too expensive even if it were available because of the high cost of the amps/splitters/combiners to insert 1550nm onto every AE fiber. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Frank B

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Owen DeLong wrote: > Nope The power going into each fiber out of the splitter is 1/16th > that of what went into the splitter. ... which is 12 dB loss. > Yes, your total in-line loss is still 10km, but you are forgetting > about the fact that you lost 15/16th of the power effectively going > to

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-01 16:03, Jason Baugher wrote: > The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not > technical. It also has to do with existing fibre infrastructure. If a Telco has already adopted a "fibre to a node" philosophy, then it has a;ready installed a limited number of str

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

What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. But few IP TV prov

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > It's still a 23dB loss for each customer from the CO to the ONT. > > I have an OLT that launches at +5dBm. At 1490nm, I should see about a .26dB > loss per km. My 1x32 splitter is going to add about 16dB more loss. Assuming > we ignore conne

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 24-Jan-13 -to- 31-Jan-13 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS982971162 3.6% 84.3 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone 2 - AS84026

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Feb 1 21:13:15 2013 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

It's still a 23dB loss for each customer from the CO to the ONT. I have an OLT that launches at +5dBm. At 1490nm, I should see about a .26dB loss per km. My 1x32 splitter is going to add about 16dB more loss. Assuming we ignore connector losses, and also assume that the customer is 10km away: CO-

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Actually, this is an issue… I should have seen it. You have 3 loss components… Power out = (Power in - loss to splitter - splitter loss) / nOut - loss-to-customer So, if the loss to the splitter is 3db and you have 20db (effective 320db on a 16x split) loss on each customer link, that's a radi

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jason, Loss is loss, but that's not all that we have to deal with here inside of how PON works. I can tell you that not a single manufacturer I've worked with says anything differently. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > I disagree. Loss is loss, regardless of where the sp

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

I should clarify: Distance x loss/km + splitter loss. = link loss. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > I disagree. Loss is loss, regardless of where the splitter is placed in > the equation. Distance x loss + splitter insertion loss = total loss for > purposes of link budget

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

I disagree. Loss is loss, regardless of where the splitter is placed in the equation. Distance x loss + splitter insertion loss = total loss for purposes of link budget calculation. The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not technical. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM,

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Owen, You're basing your math off of some incorrect assumptions about PON. I'm actually sympathetic to your goal, but it simply can't work the way you're describing it in a PON network. Also, please don't base logic for open access on meet me rooms, this works in colo spaces and carrier hotels b

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap

Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

On 2/1/13 6:26 AM, Dave Sparro wrote: > municipal utilities: > - sell bonds cheaper (holders get tax-advantaged rates in interest > income, and are ultimately backed by the muni taxpayers) Tangential to the private vs public screed: The ability to issue (and sell) tax exempt (T-E) bonds for any

Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

The muni providers have a bunch of cost advantages that help them keep the price lower. Yes, but: A) NYSEG customers are still paying off boondoggles due to incompetent current and former management that have nothing to do with their for-profit status B) So what? The customers get better s

RE: Ddos mitigation service

>From my personal experience, I am a fan of pure-play DDoS mitigation service providers (e.g. Prolexic, Dosarrest) because they are the least likely to give up on you when things get real difficult. Read the SLA careful to make sure it is fit for your purpose. -Original Message- From: Jame

Re: Ddos mitigation service

I'm aware that they exist but don't have any knowledge or experience with CloudFlare. if you're considering using them, I would ask them for a list (under NDA) of what large enterprises use them, what their POPs are - global is good - and for any analytical product they have relating to DDoS t

Re: Ddos mitigation service

On Feb 01, 2013, at 10:02 , "Paul Stewart" wrote: > Akamai (CDN) does scrubbing??? I'm sure there are other things Akamai does in the security sector as well. -- TTFN, patrick > -Original Message- > From: Pierre Lamy [mailto

Re: Ddos mitigation service

Hi Pierre, Thank you for your interesting note. On 01/02/2013 09:57, Pierre Lamy wrote: > The 3 major scrubbing vendors: > > Prolexic > Verisign > Akamai IIRC, CloudFlare claims to the same capcity of DDOS mitigation as Prolexic (500gb) and also has a free option with fewer scrubbing features.

RE: Ddos mitigation service

Akamai (CDN) does scrubbing??? Paul -Original Message- From: Pierre Lamy [mailto:pie...@userid.org] Sent: February-01-13 9:58 AM To: matt kelly Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Ddos mitigation service The 3 major scrubbing vendors: Prolexic Verisign Akamai

Re: Ddos mitigation service

The 3 major scrubbing vendors: Prolexic Verisign Akamai Prolexic has the ability to announce a /24 for you, and scrub the whole thing, then pipe it back to you via a GRE tunnel or dedicated circuit. All of the companies mentioned do this for a living, and are pretty good at what they do. Ther

Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

On 1/30/2013 5:03 PM, John Levine wrote: The muni power companies around here provide service every bit as good as NYSEG, the private power company, at literally half the price. The muni providers have a bunch of cost advantages that help them keep the price lower. municipal utilities: - sell

Re: AS30424

On 2/1/13 7:56 AM, "Teun Vink" wrote: >Hi all, > >While examining some routing table entries one of my coworkers stubled >upon a number of prefixes which is are somewhat strange (or maybe even >suspicious). The ASN originating these prefixes is AS30424, which is >part of a block of ASN's assign

AS30424

Hi all, While examining some routing table entries one of my coworkers stubled upon a number of prefixes which is are somewhat strange (or maybe even suspicious). The ASN originating these prefixes is AS30424, which is part of a block of ASN's assigned to ARIN. However, there's no entry in the ARI