[189024] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Standards for last mile performance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Reynolds)
Sun May 1 04:55:36 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <0f0b468a-5382-efa4-1652-66f18e8c0572@seacom.mu>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 03:55:33 -0500
From: Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com>
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
No. Active has higher initial and ongoing plant costs (cabinet power,
cabinet wear and tear, more battery banks, chargers, etc). You also end up
using far, far less fiber strands.
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 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.
>
