Verizon FiOS - is BGP an option?

joel jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sat Aug 4 19:02:19 CDT 2012


On 8/4/12 8:44 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
> On 4 August 2012 04:07, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
>> As someone else posted, many FTTH installations are centralized as much as
>> possible to avoid having non-passive equipment in the plant, allowing for
>> the practicality of onsite generators.  That's what we do.  But for those
>> who have powered nodes in the field (distributed/tiered BPON or GPON
>> configurations and cable plants), it's not realistic to keep them all
>> powered.  Despite what the DOT may be able to do.
>
> If only they had some kind of copper cabling running from some kind of
> central location (like perhaps the same place the fiber runs to, I
> imagine the same buildings that the old POTS lines ran to) that went
> all the way out to the huts full of powered equipment (that would
> likely be next to the old POTS junction boxes) that as a result of
> their new fiber installs would have a few pairs unused, then they
> could possibly have hooked those up as backup power when grid power
> becomes unavailable for a large area (poor power distribution
> efficiency would probably stop you wanting to power it that way all
> the time).
providing  line voltage has a bit different current requirements than a 
remote ip dslam sitting in a hut.

you're not powering something like:

http://us.zyxel.com/Products/details.aspx?PC1IndexFlag=20040812100619&CategoryGroupNo=109D87CE-A152-4245-BE66-D455B07FE7A6

over 5000' of 24awg twisted pair.
>
> It's a shame that there isn't any such copper infrastructure owned by
> those same companies already in place, but perhaps they could have
> thrown an extra copper cable in to the middle of that fiber bundle at
> the same time they were running it at negligible additional cost.
>
> - Mike
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list