From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 174CD3B25E for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f134so28307621lfg.2 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:32:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4zmyHD3J0Ob7iL/56omdzn6H8ly5dkgb5lb3RTfD3UE=; b=Wu/YxAA7mKNKqX91JtBNZL1KUvJ5/lpg3xx/72M9ir9C+pEq3Lx7yxZzGAj1pETwvc /TxTTKUz4apZQdbYNICLagbeJKdMHhHZEnEfb8vjB3xQjJ8aNkm5WbaI24/N2DUn8/lj N1ZarY3C5VbCgj40TMRtb30W8rcGSmy/BvSyTppI22UscEk//+kqAPGAWN38fpDfZO8U q6pv7/KxAGpxUb3jXiAVX7IGnTyxsnIAxHG7BHHEcb5++VrwOhKOY4sYXqPbPKQF4j4b 5gZIG9xp7jM1By91k9QWKBG/BvTsLTHlzm/3mU+qGdqUiMC3o1GlZp4kn3ORQA2YHgjH kuQg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4zmyHD3J0Ob7iL/56omdzn6H8ly5dkgb5lb3RTfD3UE=; b=hI/jjRpy9bIy+dGDfDtfaF246aNoFc0s9F7oVdYjG7qYniBskB5Q1yaFMfG4h0ctqB ZM7rtzSQWyItQJQ2rOr8g2Vhg1QP48UtvXwE7hFmmqS9ds8q9hve14cM7s+Tm2aRjycR wzH4cqzaaRso+G1hvhVtNpRyI4IPAC0CayOJTcH0StI/DbBNa2tSrBbkBV90dcxsd2Rf xSqqEIFdkWgKMZdMToSdUEOjI3CbAX0NnhFAVJjtlciH83SjZ77VqkzM8L9ZfJaXjX5h CXj2xI1qwK1ESkFo+QD9kvL1DkuReoer6aFRQ9ZPZkcpyvUpeQI2uKj5D/Rl5fgxVvCm HFaA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcgTXam9x6f7Y2eVEJkLwuzLCQ7j38aa3AY5nJDhXkkn2jUhxmxtmhBzSgIGNNv+Obrq9/kaovzkR7gSg== X-Received: by 10.25.18.211 with SMTP id 80mr6858258lfs.89.1477578776664; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:32:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.26.72 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:32:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5a2d4224-3f4e-80f0-3b0b-b2fbbdd59697@gmail.com> <77a4abf0-bc94-0d2e-eebe-d72e2e676255@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_M=C3=A5rtensson?= Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:32:55 +0200 Message-ID: To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: Jan Ceuleers , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11407f1e1c5f8d053fd99e6c Subject: Re: [Bloat] 22 seconds til bloat on gfiber? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:32:58 -0000 --001a11407f1e1c5f8d053fd99e6c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Jan Ceuleers wrote: > > What I mean is that the OLT optics become very expensive if you need to >> support as many lambdas as you have customers. You'd furthermore need an >> OLT port for much fewer customers (e.g. 1 port per 64 or 128 customers) >> than the thousands you can support on a (shared) GPON port on a single >> lambda. >> > > That only works if your customers don't use their Internet access very > much. If they do, you're in trouble and have to rebuild. > Yes, and the question then becomes: How much is "very much"? This can of course be analyzed mathematically, which e.g. Google have done here: http://research.google.com/pubs/pub44935.html > > In my market, we're now in the access speeds where 100/10 is on the lower > end of access, and it's not uncommon for people to have 250, 500 or 1000 > downstream. If they then actually start using their bw then you'd have to > rebuild to either go higher speed for some CPE (complicated and expensive), > or rebuild to have smaller splitter domains. > The standard answer from PON proponents (I'm not one) is to upgrade equipment, from GPON to XG-PON or NG-PON2. But upgrading hardware as bandwidth demand increases is necessary whatever the technology - what's important is the scalability of the solution. --001a11407f1e1c5f8d053fd99e6c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson &= lt;swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
<= span class=3D"gmail-">On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Jan Ceuleers wrote:

What I mean is that the OLT optics become very expensive if you need to
support as many lambdas as you have customers. You'd furthermore need a= n
OLT port for much fewer customers (e.g. 1 port per 64 or 128 customers)
than the thousands you can support on a (shared) GPON port on a single
lambda.

That only works if your customers don't use their Internet access very = much. If they do, you're in trouble and have to rebuild.

Yes, and the question then becomes: How much is "= ;very much"? This can of course be analyzed mathematically, which e.g.= Google have done here:

=C2=A0

In my market, we're now in the access speeds where 100/10 is on the low= er end of access, and it's not uncommon for people to have 250, 500 or = 1000 downstream. If they then actually start using their bw then you'd = have to rebuild to either go higher speed for some CPE (complicated and exp= ensive), or rebuild to have smaller splitter domains.
=
The standard answer from PON proponents (I'm not one) is= to upgrade equipment, from GPON to XG-PON or NG-PON2. But upgrading hardwa= re as bandwidth demand increases is necessary whatever the technology - wha= t's important is the scalability of the solution.
--001a11407f1e1c5f8d053fd99e6c--