Muni network ownership and the Fourth

Owen DeLong owen at
Wed Jan 30 06:10:38 UTC 2013

On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:30 , Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog at> wrote:

> On 13-01-29 22:03, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind.  The muni
>> MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a generator
>> to work.  It should not need to be staffed 24x7, have anything that
>> requires PM, etc.
> This is not possible in a GPON system. The OLT has to be carrier neutral
> so that different carriers can connect to it. It is the last point of
> aggregation before reaching homes.
> Otherwise, you would need to run multiple strands to each splitter box
> and inside run as many splitters as there are ISPs so that one home an
> be connect to the splitter used by ISP-1 while the next home's strand is
> connected to another splitter associated with ISP-2. This gets complicated.

Why can't the splitters be in the MMR? (I'm genuinely asking... I confess
to a certain level of GPON ignorance).

> Much simpler for the municipality to run L2 to a single point of
> aggregation where different ISPs can connect.  In the case of Australia,
> the aggregation points combine a few towns in rural areas. (so multiple
> OLTs).

Yes, but this approach locks us into GPON only which I do not advocate.
GPON is just the current fad. It's not necessarily the best long term


More information about the NANOG mailing list