[189023] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Standards for last mile performance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Sun May 1 04:46:46 2016
X-Original-To: Nanog@nanog.org
To: Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com>,
Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 10:46:36 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAC6=tfaPaYn4zoVUHwire6OmmgtxkOqC=X_K_PShEAT9kSYOzg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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 upstream strand
> / 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.
