That was the year when I got my first computer (and thus too young to know
her at that time) but have read quite a lot about her in recent times.
Thanks for the post Randy.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Brett Watson wrote:
> Brilliant woman with a great sense of humor, just a wonderful pers
Subject: Pad 1310nm cross-connects? Date: Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:33:19PM -0700
Quoting Chris Costa (ccosta92...@gmail.com):
> What are the opinions/views on attenuating short, 1310nm LR cross-connects.
> Assume < 20m cable length and utilizing the same vendor optics on each
> side of the link.
On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 20:57 +0100, Notify Me wrote:
> Hi,
Hello, I can not tell you how to set up an ISP. There are people on
here that have worked on doing just that and a good place for you to
start would be here:
http://www.afnog.org/
Another good resource would be found at
h
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, Chris Costa wrote:
What are the opinions/views on attenuating short, 1310nm LR cross-connects.
Assume < 20m cable length and utilizing the same vendor optics on each
side of the link. Considering the LR transmit spec doesn't exceed the
receiver's high threshold value do you
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, Chris Costa wrote:
median RX range to avoid potential receiver burnout over time, or just
leave it un-padded?
By "padding", you mean "insert attenuator"?
I have run networks with thousands of 10km optical links (1GBASE-LX,
10GBASE-LR) and none of them have used attenuato
What are the opinions/views on attenuating short, 1310nm LR cross-connects.
Assume < 20m cable length and utilizing the same vendor optics on each
side of the link. Considering the LR transmit spec doesn't exceed the
receiver's high threshold value do you pad the receiver closer to the
median RX
Hi,
Please allow me to apologize profusely if my post is offensive, or in error.
I have been lurking on this list watching and learning from all the great
posts here and am in awe of everyone here. I can only hope one day to be as
knowledgeable as anyone on this list.
That being said, some people
For cable companies who have the data service as part of the RFoG
wavelengths to provide coax at the CPE, how do they handle
collisions/timing on the upstream side ?
Does the ONT provide TDMA slots for the upstream wavelength to ensure
only one customer transmits RF at a time on the upstream ? Or
Brilliant woman with a great sense of humor, just a wonderful person. Deeply
missed.
Typing with thumbs...
> On Oct 19, 2013, at 15:36, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> abha ahuja, researcher and operator, died this day in 2001 at a
> tragically early age. if you did not know her, search a bit.
> she d
abha ahuja, researcher and operator, died this day in 2001 at a
tragically early age. if you did not know her, search a bit.
she did a lot, and with an open mind and heart.
randy
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:46 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 23:33:16 +0530, Anurag Bhatia said:
>
> >localpref to customer routes then peering and finally transit. Does
> this
> >works well or you see issues with people who have 10+ prepends on some
> >peering routes calling you to
That's no different than what MSOs are deploying as well. Using things
like DSG the STB is using IP these days to communicate with application
servers, VoD, etc. Really the same as your VZW example, the STB uses
DOCSIS for OOB signalling instead of straight RF.
PON can use a RF video overlay or
NANOGers -
ARIN is considering the appropriate frequency and format of ARIN’s
Public Policy and Members Meetings, and if you have any thoughts
in this area, then it would be helpful if you could complete a short
survey (which is open to both ARIN and NANOG communities) until
Friday
I think all of the MSOs in the US have long term (15-20 year) plans to
also do FTTH. Advances in DOCSIS and coax technology seem to be outpacing
those available on the telco twisted-pair side, so it delays forklifting
the existing HFC plant. DOCSIS 3.1 requires some significant capital
investment
On 10/19/2013 6:35 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> I need a reality check...
>
> For telcos, going from barely twisted copper pair to FTTH presents huge
> incremental improvement. FTTN is basically a stop gap medium term
> solution that is more pleasing to some beancounters.
>
> However, for a cab
Also, RFoG keeps the same STBs as old-school FTTN, and for bean counters
it's pretty hard to justify changing a LOT of STBs to IPTV ones.
On Oct 19, 2013 4:17 PM, "Mark Radabaugh" wrote:
> I believe the difference is fairly negligible between RFoG and IPTV.
> RFoG allows the cable companies to le
I believe the difference is fairly negligible between RFoG and IPTV.
RFoG allows the cable companies to leverage the existing RF head end
while FTTH requires a IPTV head end.IPTV is less familiar to most
cable operators and requires new investment in facilities and skills.
Mark
On 10/1
I need a reality check...
For telcos, going from barely twisted copper pair to FTTH presents huge
incremental improvement. FTTN is basically a stop gap medium term
solution that is more pleasing to some beancounters.
However, for a cable company, is there an advantage to deploy FTTH/GPON
to bring
18 matches
Mail list logo
