[119779] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Brown/Clack/ESD)
Tue Dec 1 15:32:57 2009
In-Reply-To: <20091201201352.GK4453@dan.olp.net>
To: Dan White <dwhite@olp.net>
From: Scott Brown/Clack/ESD <SBrown@clackesd.k12.or.us>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:28:14 -0800
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> You could deploy 2 or 3 strands and get more bandwidth to the customer,
> using perhaps less expensive hardware, or you could maintain fewer
strands
> in the ground and depend on equipment manufactures to maintain an
adequate
> growth in bandwidth capabilities.
>
> Neither approach is going to work for everyone.
>
> --
> Dan White
>
At my previous job we were deploying a hybrid system - a mix of active and
PON depending on the requirements of the customer.
For the active systems it wasn't homerun fiber back to the main CO - we had
a nice ring of fiber to key locations in the City and then we would place a
ped where the spurs would connect to.
Top that off with a CISCO Wireless Mesh overlay and no matter what speed
and mobility you needed you could get it somehow... Our only limit (at the
time I left) was upstream to the Internet.
--Scott
