nanog mailing list archives
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:11:23 +0900
actually, the killer here is PMTU... there is almost no way to effectively utilize the BW when the MTU is locked to 1500 bytes.
and the reality, e.g. ntt b-flets, is often pppoe v4-only, which is lower. randy
Current thread:
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive, (continued)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Chris Adams (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Byron Hicks (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Chris Hills (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Michael Holstein (Dec 01)
- RE: FTTH Active vs Passive Deepak Jain (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Justin Shore (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Paul Wall (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive James Bensley (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive bmanning (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Randy Bush (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Will Clayton (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Randy Bush (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Fletcher Kittredge (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 02)
- RE: FTTH Active vs Passive Rod Beck (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Curtis Maurand (Dec 02)
- RE: FTTH Active vs Passive Mackinnon, Ian (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Curtis Maurand (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Michael Holstein (Dec 02)
- RE: FTTH Active vs Passive Holmes,David A (Dec 02)