Muni network ownership and the Fourth
Jay Ashworth
jra at baylink.com
Sun Feb 3 01:55:34 UTC 2013
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs at seastrom.com>
> > Why can't the splitters be in the MMR? (I'm genuinely asking... I
> > confess to a certain level of GPON ignorance).
>
> Sorry for being late to the party (real work and all that).
>
> There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized
> splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so are
> pretty much just limited to higher fiber counts in the field, which
> adds, tops, a couple of percent to the price of the build.
Ok, see, this is what Leo, Owen and I all think, and maybe a couple others.
But Scott just got done telling me it's *so* much more expensive to
home-run than ring or GPON-in-pedestals that it's commercially infeasible.
> More than
> offset by futureproofing and not requiring forklift upgrades to add a
> new technology for a few customers. Obviously the splitters should be
> owned by the service provider and upstream of the mega-patch-bay for a
> muni open access system.
Well, I would assume the splitters have to be compatible with the OLT/ONT
chosen by a prospective L1 client, no? Or is GPON GPON, which is GPON?
> Meanwhile, EPON seems to be the technology that's won out on a global
> basis. Might have something to do with the price - all the hooks to
> support legacy ATM stuff in GPON's GEM come at a cost. :-)
Hmmm. I invite you, Rob, if you have the time, to look at the Rollup
and Followup posts I put out this afternoon, which are the look at this
which is closest to current in time.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
More information about the NANOG
mailing list