3 ms·

I didn’t really understand the criticism. PON is just fine. I have an XGPON ONT and previously there was a GPON ONT. Upgrading was just getting one from the ISP

I didn’t really understand the criticism. PON is just fine. I have an XGPON ONT and previously there was a GPON ONT. Upgrading was just getting one from the ISP after they upgraded the splitter. GPON and XGSPON can live simultaneously. I don’t think we will ever hit the limits of PON quite frankly and swapping out PONs for newer and better standards is rather trivial.

theideaofcoffee 2y ago
It's equivalent to an old POTS party line, just with some makeup covering its shambling corpse (read: ITU G-number) and a bit more razzle-dazzle after strapping on some lasers. We can do better!
- jojobas 2y ago
  What are the alternatives with passive splitter hardware that can work underwater if shit happens?
- the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
  > It's equivalent to an old POTS party line I strongly disagree. On a party line information flows along the copper cable to every connected endpoint bidirectionally. While it's true that incoming information flows to all subscribers, never does information that flows out and you only get scrambled data even on the incoming stream. So if you're trying to make a security argument: the system is also safe on a physical level. > We can do better! Depends on what "better" is. I was quite critical of PON in the past but I have come around. Practically at this point I think PON is a better way to run networks in most places. At one point you hit a bottleneck anyways and not having to run individual fibers makes for a more resilient and cheaper system.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  Yes, exactly like one of those old copper POTS party lines - remember how providers could easily supply a reliable symmetrical multi-gigabit service over those (like we can with XGS-PON) and how they theoretically could use DWDM to move hundreds of gigabits over them? No??

3 ms·

I didn’t really understand the criticism. PON is just fine. I have an XGPON ONT and previously there was a GPON ONT. Upgrading was just getting one from the ISP

by the_mitsuhiko 2y ago

theideaofcoffee 2y ago
It's equivalent to an old POTS party line, just with some makeup covering its shambling corpse (read: ITU G-number) and a bit more razzle-dazzle after strapping on some lasers. We can do better!
- jojobas 2y ago
  What are the alternatives with passive splitter hardware that can work underwater if shit happens?
- the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
  > It's equivalent to an old POTS party line I strongly disagree. On a party line information flows along the copper cable to every connected endpoint bidirectionally. While it's true that incoming information flows to all subscribers, never does information that flows out and you only get scrambled data even on the incoming stream. So if you're trying to make a security argument: the system is also safe on a physical level. > We can do better! Depends on what "better" is. I was quite critical of PON in the past but I have come around. Practically at this point I think PON is a better way to run networks in most places. At one point you hit a bottleneck anyways and not having to run individual fibers makes for a more resilient and cheaper system.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  Yes, exactly like one of those old copper POTS party lines - remember how providers could easily supply a reliable symmetrical multi-gigabit service over those (like we can with XGS-PON) and how they theoretically could use DWDM to move hundreds of gigabits over them? No??