nanog mailing list archives
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 20:20:31 -0500
Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> writes:
On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:30 , Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca> wrote:On 13-01-29 22:03, Leo Bicknell wrote:The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind. The muni MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a generator to work. It should not need to be staffed 24x7, have anything that requires PM, etc.This is not possible in a GPON system. The OLT has to be carrier neutral so that different carriers can connect to it. It is the last point of aggregation before reaching homes. Otherwise, you would need to run multiple strands to each splitter box and inside run as many splitters as there are ISPs so that one home an be connect to the splitter used by ISP-1 while the next home's strand is connected to another splitter associated with ISP-2. This gets complicated.Why can't the splitters be in the MMR? (I'm genuinely asking... I confess to a certain level of GPON ignorance).
Sorry for being late to the party (real work and all that). There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so are pretty much just limited to higher fiber counts in the field, which adds, tops, a couple of percent to the price of the build. More than offset by futureproofing and not requiring forklift upgrades to add a new technology for a few customers. Obviously the splitters should be owned by the service provider and upstream of the mega-patch-bay for a muni open access system. Meanwhile, EPON seems to be the technology that's won out on a global basis. Might have something to do with the price - all the hooks to support legacy ATM stuff in GPON's GEM come at a cost. :-) -r PS: Back in the mid-90s, I used to fantasize about being able to say "legacy ATM".
Current thread:
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Dave Sparro (Feb 01)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth John R. Levine (Feb 01)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Eric Brunner-Williams (Feb 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Robert E. Seastrom (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jason Baugher (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Leo Bicknell (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Scott Helms (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Robert E. Seastrom (Feb 03)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Feb 03)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Robert E. Seastrom (Feb 05)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Feb 05)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Feb 02)