<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">ONT always has SFP for PON. It is inside (built-in) – this way is cheaper. OK. In this case, it is not SFP because it is not “pluggable”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">1G and 10G optics have a big cost difference for ONT.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Dave Bell [mailto:me@geordish.org]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 10, 2022 11:09 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>; Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net>; nanog@nanog.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Upstream bandwidth usage<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are rolling out XGS-PON everywhere which is 10G symmetric. Just because the PON runs at 10G, doesn't mean you need to provision all of your customers at 10G. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have a range of residential packages from 150Mbps up to 1Gbps symmetric. The ONT is the same in all situations. There is no SFP cost, due to it being a copper port. If we were to offer residential packages beyond 1G, a CPE swap would
be required, but there is little demand for that... yet...<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The future is bright for PON with NG-PON2, and 50G PON on their way.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<br>
Dave<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 08:54, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against 7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 1000000.<br>
<br>
By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted for "Enterprise clients".<br>
CPE cost hurts in this case.<br>
But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the same tree.<br>
<br>
Ed/<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: NANOG [mailto:<a href="mailto:nanog-bounces%2Bvasilenko.eduard" target="_blank">nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard</a>=<a href="mailto:huawei.com@nanog.org" target="_blank">huawei.com@nanog.org</a>] On Behalf Of Mel Beckman<br>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 4:11 AM<br>
To: Raymond Burkholder <<a href="mailto:ray@oneunified.net" target="_blank">ray@oneunified.net</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" target="_blank">nanog@nanog.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage<br>
<br>
I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber.
<br>
<br>
-mel via cell<br>
<br>
> On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder <<a href="mailto:ray@oneunified.net" target="_blank">ray@oneunified.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"></span><br>
> <br>
>> On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>>> On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:<br>
>>> Adam,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and
a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.<br>
>> <br>
>> Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator decision.<br>
> <br>
> There are also vendor issues involved. I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical line' rate. Which becomes a theoretical thing. If the line cards aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen. And I think the line cards can also be easily
over-subscribed. Oh, and due to the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited.<br>
> <br>
> So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire. Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is provisioning a GPON infrastructure. Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 10G GPON.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>