Last Mile Design

Clayton Zekelman clayton at MNSi.Net
Sat Feb 9 18:35:18 UTC 2019

We have around 60,000 homes passed with GPON architecture.  I'm not 
really sure how we would have built that with active roadside 
cabinets, and still have been able to maintain any sort cost control.

If we did it with a home run individual fibre scheme hauled back to a 
central POP, the frame would have been massive and the power and 
cooling requirements would have made the entire project unfeasible.

Maybe the economics are different in other markets.

Because PON is so widely deployed, you can count on vendors coming up 
with capacity increases (NG, X, etc.) to support the installed base 
of infrastructure. Verizon alone will drive that market.

  From a purist point of view, AE is a nice idea, but it really isn't 
necessary for now or the foreseeable future.

At 01:22 PM 09/02/2019, Sander Steffann wrote:
>Hi Mark,
> > My preference, for the home, would be Active-E. But I do 
> understand the economics that may support PON, and my position on 
> that has softened over the years.
>Same for me. I like the architecture where the PON splitters are in 
>powered roadside cabinets (even though the splitter is passive). 
>That way the ISP can convert it to AE at any time they want. The 
>architectures where PON has been hardcoded into the design has 
>always felt like a huge risk regarding future developments.


Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409        

More information about the NANOG mailing list