On 16 Feb 2013, at 11:30, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Edward Dore wrote:
>
>>> Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not "fiber optic broadband",
>>> because it is "broadband" (at least with today's access speed)
>>> with "fiber optic".
>>
>> Then why would you not also consider bog standard ADSL to al
Edward Dore wrote:
Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not "fiber optic broadband",
because it is "broadband" (at least with today's access speed)
with "fiber optic".
Then why would you not also consider bog standard ADSL to also
> be "fibre optic"?
Because I think "fiber optic broadband" im
I completely agree with you on this Owen, and we were almost in that situation
in the UK but Ofcom backed down for some reason :(
BT, as a state created monopoly, was facing being broken up with the local loop
operations being hived off into a completely separate company to give all
providers e
>
> With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in terms of layer 1
> unbundling - it's impossible with either as they are both shared mediums
> aggregated before the exchange.
>
Which is a classic example of why I say the L1 provider must not be allowed to
participate in or act a
On 14 Feb 2013, at 01:13, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Edward Dore wrote:
>
>> Sadly, despite this being challenged with both the telecoms
>> regulator (Ofcom) and advertising watchdog (ASA), for some
>> reason both seem pretty happy with the utter farce that is
>> advertising BT/OpenReach's VDSL based
GuysŠwe're done on this. Let it go, already.
-c
On 14-02-13 19:13 , "Masataka Ohta"
wrote:
>Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>> Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not "fiber optic broadband",
>>> because it is "broadband" (at least with today's access speed)
>>> with "fiber optic".
>>
>> And by that a
Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not "fiber optic broadband",
>> because it is "broadband" (at least with today's access speed)
>> with "fiber optic".
>
> And by that argument pots dialup is fiber optic because the packets
> went over a fiber optic link to get to the CO.
Game. Blouses.
>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Mark Andrews
Date: 02/13/2013 5:25 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Masataka Ohta
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
In message <511c3a4a.7050...@ne
In message <511c3a4a.7050...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka Ohta writes:
> Edward Dore wrote:
>
> > Sadly, despite this being challenged with both the telecoms
> > regulator (Ofcom) and advertising watchdog (ASA), for some
> > reason both seem pretty happy with the utter farce that is
> >
Edward Dore wrote:
> Sadly, despite this being challenged with both the telecoms
> regulator (Ofcom) and advertising watchdog (ASA), for some
> reason both seem pretty happy with the utter farce that is
> advertising BT/OpenReach's VDSL based Fibre To The Cabinet
> and Virgin Media's Hybrid Fibre
Sadly, despite this being challenged with both the telecoms regulator (Ofcom)
and advertising watchdog (ASA), for some reason both seem pretty happy with the
utter farce that is advertising BT/OpenReach's VDSL based Fibre To The Cabinet
and Virgin Media's Hybrid Fibre Coax networks as "fibre opt
- Original Message -
> From: "Masataka Ohta"
> If you can't accept the shown reality that PON is more expensive
> than SS and insist on stating it were my opinion without any
> evidences, its your arrogance.
>
> PERIOD.
Nope. It's you, dude. Really.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashwor
On 13 February 2013 12:34, Scott Helms wrote:
> Using the UK as a model for US and Canadian deployments is a fallacy.
I don't believe anyone was looking at the UK model? But now that you
mention it the UK has a rather interesting model for fibre deployment,
a significant portion of the country ha
Scott Helms wrote:
> Masataka,
>
> Using the UK as a model for US and Canadian deployments is a fallacy.
May or may not be.
But, what "Using the UK as a model for US and Canadian
deployments"!?
I'm afraid it's not me but you to have done so.
So?
Who are you arguing against?
> Yo
Warren Bailey wrote:
> No one wants to deal with an
> arrogant prick, especially one who says someone "lost" because your
> opinion seems to be more valid to yourself.
Figures in
http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/policyreports/chousa/bb_seibi/pdf/041209_2_14.pdf
is not my opinion b
Masataka,
Using the UK as a model for US and Canadian deployments is a fallacy. The
population density there is 673 per square mile, much closer to Japan's
(873 per sq mile) than either the US (89 per sq mile) or Canada (10 per sq
mile). The UK also has a legal monopoly for telephone infrastruct
At this point I think the topic has been exhausted. If you participate in
a conversation, try to chime in with thoughtful and insightful points.
We're on here to help each other, if you want to measure girth there is
probably a better venue to do so. I don't think anyone lost anything,
other than a
Jason Baugher wrote:
> Scott, I've been down this road with Masataka. over the last few days. I
> gave up.
You have lost instantly, because you insisted on 32:1, which
makes expensive PON even more expensive.
It's stupid to insist on 32:1 to have 6 trunk fibers and 31 drop
fibers within a cable
Scott Helms wrote:
>>> Numbers? Examples?
>> Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.
> Japan has one of the highest population densities of major economies in the
The examples are in rural area and I already stated population
density in English.
>> No, the only reas
Scott, I've been down this road with Masataka. over the last few days. I
gave up.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Masataka Ohta <
> mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> > Scott Helms wrote:
> >
> > > Numbers? Examples?
> >
> > Gree
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Scott Helms wrote:
>
> > Numbers? Examples?
>
> Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.
>
Japan has one of the highest population densities of major economies in the
world with
Scott Helms wrote:
> Numbers? Examples?
Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.
> This is simply incorrect in many places. The only
> reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it,
No, the only reason to insist on PON is to make L1 unbundling
not
eople.
>
>
> From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
>
>
>
> Original message
> From: Warren Bailey
> Date: 02/11/2013 4:44 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: Stephen Sprunk ,nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
>
>
Masataka,
Numbers? Examples? This is simply incorrect in many places. The only
reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it, are you
saying that all greenfield PON installs are cheaper done as Ethernet
without exception?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mo.
> In part because I'm realizing that it is literally viable to plonk a 6509
> into the colo, get a 10G uplink and pump out a bunch of 1000base?X
> connections (or even 100base?X) to customers at a fairly low price
> per port. In this case, there wouldn't be any active L2 termination at
> the custom
> If the L1 provider's responsibility ends at the jack on the outside NIU,
> as an ILEC's does today with copper, then you have clean separation and
> easy access for both initial installation and for later
> troubleshooting--clear benefits that help mitigate nearly all the
> problems Scott refers
On 11-Feb-13 22:33, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a
> patchcord*. If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external*
> jackbox, then that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop
> cable -- and the ISP field tech will have to work
On Feb 11, 2013, at 20:33 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk wrote:
>>
>>> Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
>>> copper services brought into the home.
>
>> Who cares whether it
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk wrote:
>
> > Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
> > copper services brought into the home.
> Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the
> penetration.
What
- Original Message -
> From: "Masataka Ohta"
> In addition, as PON is even less efficient initially when
> subscriber density is low and there are few subscribers to
> share a field splitter (unless extremely lengthy drop cables
> are used, which costs a lot), PON is slower to pay them of
network.
Original message
From: Warren Bailey
Date: 02/11/2013 4:44 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Stephen Sprunk ,nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Check out GCI's Terranet project.
>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> The fiber plant would presumably be paid for with 30-year bonds, same as
> any other municipal infrastructure (eg. water and sewer lines--the real
> "pipes"), for which interest rates are currently running around the rate
> of inflation. There is no need to pay them off qu
Check out GCI's Terranet project.
>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Stephen Sprunk
Date: 02/11/2013 4:37 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On 11-Feb-13 18:23, Warren Bail
On 11-Feb-13 18:23, Warren Bailey wrote:
> On 2/11/13 4:16 PM, "Masataka Ohta" wrote:
>> Scott Helms wrote:
>>> IMO if you can't pay for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently
>>> then your chances of long term success are very low.
>> That is not a business model for infrastructure su
On 11-Feb-13 15:24, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> From: "Stephen Sprunk"
>>> By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that; unlike L3, I
>>> don't believe it actually needs to be a separate company; I expect most ISP
>>> business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an accomodation to potential lar
Nearly all of the industries you mentioned below receive some type of
local or federal/government funding. If I was going to build some kind of
access network, I would be banging on the .gov door asking for grants and
low interest loans to help roll out broadband to remote areas. My former
employer
Scott Helms wrote:
> IMO if you can't pay
> for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently then your chances of
> long term success are very low.
That is not a business model for infrastructure such as gas,
electricity, CATV, water and fiber network, all of which
need long term planning and
On 11-Feb-13 16:37, Scott Helms wrote:
>
> I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of
> fiber, which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads
> him to invite all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for
> a purely L1 provider, simply would not ap
>>
>> I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on the
>> outside wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber owner can test
>> to. If an L2 operator has active equipment, put it inside--and it would
>> be part of the customer-purchased (or -leased) equipment when they tur
>
> I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of fiber,
> which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads him to invite
> all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for a purely L1
> provider, simply would not apply.
>
Not at all, I've obsessing about all of the cos
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Sprunk"
> > By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that;
> > unlike L3, I don't believe it actually needs to be a separate
> > company; I expect most ISP business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an
> > accomodation to potential larger ISPs
On 11-Feb-13 13:13, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> From: "Stephen Sprunk"
>> Sure, almost nobody asks for dark fiber today because they know it costs
>> several orders of magnitude more than a T1 or whatever. However, if the
>> price for dark fiber were the same (or lower), latent demand would
>> materi
> ... but now you are dictating what technology is used, via the active
> aggregation equipment (i.e. ADMs) you installed at your nodes on the
> ring. Also, the fiber provider now has to maintain and upgrade that
> active aggregation equipment, as opposed to just patching fiber from one
> port to
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Sprunk"
> Sure, almost nobody asks for dark fiber today because they know it costs
> several orders of magnitude more than a T1 or whatever. However, if the
> price for dark fiber were the same (or lower), latent demand would
> materialize. Why would
On 05-Feb-13 11:37, Scott Helms wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Scott Helms"
Yes it does... It locks you into whatever is supported on the ring.
>>> I don't know how I can explain this more plainly, I can (more accurate
Jason Baugher wrote:
>> No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate someone who don't want
>> to be educated.
> You're not trying to educate anyone at all. You're just stomping
> your foot and insisting that you're right rather than have a
> meaningful discussion.
So far, I have shown several figur
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Jason Baugher wrote:
>
> >> You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
> >> topic.
>
> > I'm shocked that you waste time trying to educate us.
>
> No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate
On 03-Feb-13 14:33, Scott Helms wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Is it more expensive to home-run every home than to put splitters in the
>> neighborhood? Yes. Is it enough more expensive that the tradeoffs cannot be
>> overcome? I remain unconvinced.
> This complet
On 02-Feb-13 14:07, Scott Helms wrote:
> A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the
> foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its simple
> not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The optimal open
> access network (with curre
On 04-Feb-13 15:17, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> On 13-02-04 16:04, Scott Helms wrote:
>> Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is
>> moot as well.
> This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada
> leaves indepdendant ISPs having to expl
Jason Baugher wrote:
>> You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
>> topic.
> I'm shocked that you waste time trying to educate us.
No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate someone who don't want
to be educated.
> You're the one making the assertion, it's not my job to help
On Feb 9, 2013 6:14 PM, "Masataka Ohta"
wrote:
>
> Jason Baugher wrote:
>
> > You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
> > document says?
>
> You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
> topic.
>
If you say so. In your own mind you obviously know
Japan has fiber optic internet all figured out, however cable dressing 101
was a class everyone skipped.
http://www.dannychoo.com/post/en/1653/Japan+Optic+Fiber+Internet.html
On 2/9/13 4:13 PM, "Masataka Ohta"
wrote:
>Jason Baugher wrote:
>
>> You are seriously saying I should hire a translato
Jay Ashworth wrote:
> So, over three times as much fiber if you're not putting the splitter
> in the field, which is... the opposite of what you assert?
That is a very minor material cost.
What matters is labor, which is mostly proportional to not total
length of fiber but total length of cable
Jason Baugher wrote:
> You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
> document says?
You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
topic.
BTW, it is not my document but an article in a famous online
magazine.
> How about you point out a reference
> wr
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>> Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail,
>> total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times
>> more than the trunk cable length.
>>
>> Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON.
>
> You're confusing fiber architecture with
Jason Baugher writes:
> Our main cost is labor. Fiber, fdh, splitters, etc... are marginal.
dingdingdingding WE HAVE A WINNER. :-)
-r
- Original Message -
> From: "Masataka Ohta"
> Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
> >> Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
> >
> > Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or
> > 32?
>
> That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
> which does not
You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
document says? That is hilarious. How about you point out a reference
written in a language common to North America, since this IS NANOG.
Anyone here doing or know someone doing 4-1 or 8-1 splits, in a typical
American town?
Masataka Ohta writes:
> Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
>>> Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
>>
>> Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?
>
> That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
> which does not contribute to reduce the number of fib
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>> Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
>
> Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?
That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
which does not contribute to reduce the number of fibers in a
trunk cable.
> 16 is a saf
Masataka Ohta writes:
> Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?
16 is a safe number.
-r
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>> The problem of PON is that, to efficiently share a fiber and
>> a splitter, they must be shared by many subscribers, which
>> means drop cables are longer than those of SS.
>
> Pardon my ignorance here, but could you explain why the cables would be
> physically diffe
Jason Baugher wrote:
> In a greenfield build, cost difference for plant between PON and active
> will be negligible for field-based splitters, non-existent for CO-based
> splitters.
If you choose to have CO-based splitters, you need to have MDF
for L1 unbundling, and 1:8 (or 1:4, 1:32 or whatever
Hi,
If by FTTH you mean the ADSL2+/VDSL offering they packaged as Fibe
(yes the named it that).
It is available to resellers... /wave
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Queb
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> >> As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
> >> to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
> >> unless subscriber density is very high.
> >
> >
On 13-02-08 03:36, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> The problem of PON is that, to efficiently share a fiber and
> a splitter, they must be shared by many subscribers, which
> means drop cables are longer than those of SS.
Pardon my ignorance here, but could you explain why the cables would be
physically d
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Assume you have 4000 subscribers and total trunk cable length
Correction. Though I wrote 4000, it is a population and the number
of subscribers are 1150.
> For example, if drop cables of PON are 10m longer in average than
> that of SS, it's total length is 40km, which is *
Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
>> to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
>> unless subscriber density is very high.
>
> Oh, ghod; we're not gonna go here, again, are we?
That PON is more expensive than SS is the reality
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Jason Baugher wrote:
On the CO-side electronics, however... I think it's safe to say that you
can do GPON under $100/port. AE is probably going to run close to
$300/port. That's a pretty big cost difference, and if it were me I'd be
looking pretty hard at a PON deployment f
On Feb 7, 2013 12:24 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> That has not been demonstrated in the market. There are lots of people
who say this, generally they're involved in building fiber plants, but in
the US and Canada I've not seen a single report of
In a greenfield build, cost difference for plant between PON and active
will be negligible for field-based splitters, non-existent for CO-based
splitters.
If the company already has some fiber in the ground, then depending on
where it is might drastically reduce build costs to use field-based
spli
- Original Message -
> From: "Masataka Ohta"
> Scott Helms wrote:
> > Now, in general for greenfield builds I'd agree except for
> > PON, which is in many cases cheaper than an Ethernet build.
>
> As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
> to 4 or 8 subscribers, it
Scott Helms wrote:
> Now, in general for greenfield builds I'd agree except for
> PON, which is in many cases cheaper than an Ethernet build.
As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
unless subscriber density is ver
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
That has not been demonstrated in the market. There are lots of people
who say this, generally they're involved in building fiber plants, but
in the US and Canada I've not seen a single report of an actual network
where this was true. Do you have any do
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
>
> The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
>> significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no advantage
>> to doing ATM, but the real cost saving
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no
advantage to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface
are not significant.
There has always been
Scott Helms wrote:
>> You miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple modems.
> Most PPPoE L2TP setups have no ATM besides the default PVC
> between the modem and the DSLAM.
You still miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple DSLAMs.
>>> You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:48 PM
To: Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Scott Helms wrote:
> Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real
> drawback to using ATM.
High cost is the real drawback.
>>> but the basic conce
On 13-02-06 18:11, Scott Helms wrote:
> I'd agree. Its a better way of doing L2 unbundling than PPPoE. Its just
> PPPoE had the sharing concept baked into it so it was easy for most
> operators to use historically.
PPPoE has its roots in the dialup days. So Incumbents were more than
happy to b
> However, the australian NBN model is far superior because it enables far
> more flexibility such as multicasting etc. PPPoE is useless overhead if
> you have the right management tools to point a customer to his ISP. (and
> it also means that the wholesale infrastructure can be switch based
> int
On 13-02-06 17:12, Scott Helms wrote:
> Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that
> PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any
> other technology I'm aware of
By default, Telus in western Canada has deployed ethernet based DSL for
w
Jerome Nicolle wrote:
> In non-dense areas, zone operators have to build concentration points
> (kind of MMRs) for at least 300 residences (when chaining MMRs) or 1000
> residences (for a single MMR per zone). Theses MMRs often take the form
> of street cabinets or shelters and have to be equiped
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Scott Helms wrote:
>
> > The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
> > significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no
> advantage
> > to doing ATM, but the r
Scott Helms wrote:
> The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
> significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no advantage
> to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface are not
> significant.
You miss ATM switches to connect the c
Jean,
Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that
PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any
other technology I'm aware of (anyone else have ideas?) in North America
and Europe. I'd also say that the ERX is an EOL box, but that doesn
On 13-02-06 16:53, Scott Helms wrote:
> You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers right?
> You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only open
> access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe.
Actually, there is a cost. In lo
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Scott Helms wrote:
>
> > Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real
> drawback
> > to using ATM.
>
> High cost is the real drawback.
>
The cost difference in a single interface card
Scott Helms wrote:
> Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real drawback
> to using ATM.
High cost is the real drawback.
>>> but the basic concept is not bad.
>>
>> It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See
>> the subject.
> Why?
Because, for competing
On 13-02-06 10:16, Eric Wieling wrote:
> Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul their
> DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?
In Bell Canada Territory, wholesale traffic between DSLAM and BAS/BRAS
travels normally.
The BAS establishes the PPPoE se
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Helms"
> Yep, that's likely what will happen over the long term anyhow. That's why
> I asked about a new apartment building in your territory. You decision
> would be either run additional fiber to support each apartment as an
> end point, simply provid
>
> I think that risk low enough to take it, especially since my entire
> city fits in about a 3mi radius. :-)
>
This is data I'd like to have had earlier, if your total diameter is 6
miles then the math will almost certainly work to home run everything,
though I'd still run the numbers.
>
> No
- Original Message -
> From: "Benny Amorsen"
> > I'm not *trying* to do the last thing.
> >
> > I'm trying to do the next thing. Or maybe the one after that.
>
> The existing copper network was in many cases built like a star with
> some very long runs. This worked fine for telephony, bu
Jay Ashworth writes:
> GPON/DOCSIS/RFoG? That's one people are deploying today.
>
> Over the 50 year proposed lifetime of the plant? WTF knows. That's
> exactly the point.
>
> To paraphrase Tom Peters, you don't look like a trailbreaker by
> *emulating what other trailbreakers have done*.
>
>
> >
> > That's incorrect, you simply don't have as many available but in a
> current
> > "normal" build you could easily provide 100+ dark fiber leases that
> extend
> > from your MDF (still don't like using this term here) all the way down
> > to the home or business.
>
> And, conversely, I could,
[mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
>
> Eric Wieling wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other ISPs an
> > ATM PVC into their networ
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Helms"
> > However, for any given ring, you are locked into a single technology
> > and you have to put active electronics out in the field.
>
> Correct, but you can have many layer 2 rings riding your physical ring. In
> a normal install you're going
: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Eric Wieling wrote:
> I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other ISPs an
> ATM PVC into their network.
Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.
> ATM may not be the best technology to do this,
It is not.
> but the basic concept is no
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Eric Wieling wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other
> > ISPs an ATM PVC into their network.
>
> Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.
>
> > ATM may not be the best techno
at each and every CO I want to provide service out of.
> This would be astoundingly expensive for us.
>
This is what I see most commonly.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:42 PM
&g
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
