FTTH Active vs Passive

Will Clayton w.d.clayton at gmail.com
Wed Dec 2 00:58:48 CST 2009


Now just imagine that people inside the big firewall could tell you how they
engineered multi-gig FTTTVs.

At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the
physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States
is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking about.
The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no matter
how crowded the vendor meet is. There are pockets of isolated/niche success
and its great to see technology implemented in such ways, RFCs being
drafted, etc., but jeez guys, the real issue at stake here is how in the
hell we are all going to work past the bureaucratic constraints of our
arguably humble positions to transparently superimpose something that will
enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of
a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified
infrastructure. This post in itself obviates our incapacity to handle our
own infrastructure, and while I believe discussing this is of the utmost
importance I have to point out, first and foremost, that the highest
priority is a level playing field. I know at least some of you can really
understand that and I hope it drive some of your sleeping points home a bit
so you can wake up in the morning and get something right.

-Will

Ok I will never post here again. Gnight...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

> > actually, the killer here is PMTU... there is almost no way to
> > effectively utilize the BW when the MTU is locked to 1500 bytes.
>
> and the reality, e.g. ntt b-flets, is often pppoe v4-only, which is
> lower.
>
> randy
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list