3 ms·

I am not sure the people bashing GPON know how a typical network is constructed. If GPON doesnt work out, we dont ahve to rip it all out and do it again. There

by eppp 3y ago

I am not sure the people bashing GPON know how a typical network is constructed. If GPON doesnt work out, we dont ahve to rip it all out and do it again. There are home runs back to all of the splitter cabinets. If we need to switch to home run back to the CO, we could do it fairly easily. We just run larger cables to the cabinets and patch directly across instead of patching input to splitter to house.

theideaofcoffee 3y ago
I understand how they are constructed, I've supported them in the past. What I quarrel with is the splitter aspect and the additional equipment that inevitably appears between the subscriber and the final termination point--be that a splitter, be that yet another patch that could fail inside another cabinet along the line in the middle of nowhere. If you're going to make p2p home runs, just do it. Support the equipment in the first place at the CO to make that possible, rather than installing splitters then ripping out those splitters, patching things back up. Remove the intermediate cabinets. At that point you may as well just provide raw ethernet. What was the point of the PON nonsense then? PON is a stop-gap technology that's outlived its usefulness, if it ever was there before. It's a crutch and should be retired.
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > PON is a stop-gap technology that's outlived its usefulness, if it ever was there before. It's a crutch and should be retired. Considering I just moved from 25Mb VDSL to 1Gb GPON in the last few months I find it very useful: certainly my software updates come down much more quickly (though my SSH CLI sessions for work as a sysadmin aren't really that different). I'm not sure what I'd find more useful about a direct connection over a shared-medium fibre.
- rbranson 3y ago
  PON is what's allowed fiber deployments out for consumer affordable prices and continued scalability of endpoint bandwidth, so "stop-gap" seems a little bit of an extreme position. There are a lot of environments where just the space and power requirements of a 10G port for each customer make it a non-starter, let alone the cost.

by eppp 3y ago

theideaofcoffee 3y ago

I understand how they are constructed, I've supported them in the past. What I quarrel with is the splitter aspect and the additional equipment that inevitably appears between the subscriber and the final termination point--be that a splitter, be that yet another patch that could fail inside another cabinet along the line in the middle of nowhere. If you're going to make p2p home runs, just do it. Support the equipment in the first place at the CO to make that possible, rather than installing splitters then ripping out those splitters, patching things back up. Remove the intermediate cabinets. At that point you may as well just provide raw ethernet. What was the point of the PON nonsense then? PON is a stop-gap technology that's outlived its usefulness, if it ever was there before. It's a crutch and should be retired.

throw0101c 3y ago
> PON is a stop-gap technology that's outlived its usefulness, if it ever was there before. It's a crutch and should be retired. Considering I just moved from 25Mb VDSL to 1Gb GPON in the last few months I find it very useful: certainly my software updates come down much more quickly (though my SSH CLI sessions for work as a sysadmin aren't really that different). I'm not sure what I'd find more useful about a direct connection over a shared-medium fibre.
rbranson 3y ago
PON is what's allowed fiber deployments out for consumer affordable prices and continued scalability of endpoint bandwidth, so "stop-gap" seems a little bit of an extreme position. There are a lot of environments where just the space and power requirements of a 10G port for each customer make it a non-starter, let alone the cost.