[159998] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jan 30 01:15:36 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5108A1F0.6020805@vaxination.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:10:38 -0800
To: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:30 , Jean-Francois Mezei =
<jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-01-29 22:03, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
Why can't the splitters be in the MMR? (I'm genuinely asking... I =
confess
to a certain level of GPON ignorance).
> Much simpler for the municipality to run L2 to a single point of
> aggregation where different ISPs can connect. In the case of =
Australia,
> the aggregation points combine a few towns in rural areas. (so =
multiple
> OLTs).
>=20
Yes, but this approach locks us into GPON only which I do not advocate.
GPON is just the current fad. It's not necessarily the best long term
solution.
Owen
