[189025] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Standards for last mile performance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Reynolds)
Sun May 1 04:58:15 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <0f0b468a-5382-efa4-1652-66f18e8c0572@seacom.mu>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 03:56:26 -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
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 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.
>
