nanog mailing list archives
Re: Standards for last mile performance
From: Josh Reynolds <josh () kyneticwifi com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 03:56:26 -0500
In addition, the upgrade path uses the same strands simultaneously. On May 1, 2016 3:46 AM, "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:
On 30/Apr/16 20:36, Josh Reynolds wrote:For us (FTTH) we had/have enough aggressive foresight to do smaller splits.. 1x16. Some are doing 1x2's or 1x4's at the corner somewhere into 1x16's or 1x8's, so at the point where you start to hit decent saturation you can just shrink the upstream split and fuse onto a new upstreamstrand/ optic. Once that gets overused, thankfully you can overlay NG-PON2.If you're being this aggressive, and then having to re-invest in the next PON standard, isn't the case for Active-E being made more and more? Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: Standards for last mile performance Mark Tinka (May 01)
- Re: Standards for last mile performance Josh Reynolds (May 01)
- Re: Standards for last mile performance Mark Tinka (May 01)
- Re: Standards for last mile performance Josh Reynolds (May 01)
- Re: Standards for last mile performance Eric Kuhnke (May 02)
- Re: Standards for last mile performance Mark Tinka (May 01)
- Re: Standards for last mile performance Josh Reynolds (May 01)
- Re: Standards for last mile performance Josh Reynolds (May 01)