From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF10121F2CD for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id v10so2561390qac.7 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:54:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aenertia.net; s=dkimaenertianet; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=AzANuMpeI67L1MLgAigIbdCRaVXwSbxTxxG6BxT88FU=; b=NTgpttSz5u/jxnmGSiEkbws3g8I60IcZyHpfc5V5FS2hKuNLG3Mlx+BI2LGYF2tpR5 vteQ95UeCvflIxD9PjCn/l1Rp0w/6D1+ukJMlJZK20b+yYuuheUqbz1SX4ajiJIAKDIy LvLHa8YAtfuiReB65X1WpZmlPc3TcOLqgiVrw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=AzANuMpeI67L1MLgAigIbdCRaVXwSbxTxxG6BxT88FU=; b=BAZSy8MrH9W43pXC4nLPvdf3mKPOZH2cerDlYm8LIremAofizHdLmL31i5EsCT5Gg6 xjNzcfSIcw5L7Vq5m0ExVAlTf36dFZq+ecDNO3qAfhN4E92+Ge2CU/iQ/5e42Yko6gId oEUWIGo8xFRY+VvvL5Lqy9cQT6MrjdY8sn6BtM0oeM2MyMucRGDxrgAILHVCI6DZ8DCu w7JeFPrs9pXix2N4kb7zC3ZcrtM0Q7Xux+nNhzm2xbCEAP1nD+1t/tgIJ+MfUaSSHN2p WCn6zhlHi94i1R0FDIWP/Yxc0tadQohcFVmJOFYPxfFXzpd8HG8LIYnBh+HuOZAps3MU cS4g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkk2eyStRDyQgOPHppY/IIpI7ubqjnNIww5IMQVP6psMU017wEipAL/uifIXHnnmaRKhv/d X-Received: by 10.224.46.67 with SMTP id i3mr32078733qaf.90.1410386093811; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: aenertia@aenertia.net Received: by 10.96.63.229 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:54:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <11431.1410379395@sandelman.ca> References: <11431.1410379395@sandelman.ca> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Joel_Wir=C4=81mu_Pauling?= Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:54:33 +1200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8ofdijp8czNmLWNQLNqR_AmnEzM Message-ID: To: Michael Richardson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Wes Felter , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 10GigE nics and SFP+ modules? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:55:24 -0000 I have been heavily involved with the UFB (Ultrafast Broadband) PON deployment here in New Zealand. I am not sure how the regulated environment is playing out in Canada (I am moving there in a month so I guess I will find out). But here the GPON architecture is METH based and Layer2 only. Providers (RSP's) are the ones responsible for asking for Handoffer buffer tweaks to the LFC(local fibre companies; the layer 0-2 outfits-) which have mandated targets for Latency (at most 4.5ms) accross their PON Access networks to the Handover port. Most of the time this has been to 'fix' Speedtest.net TCP based results to report whatever Marketed service (100/30 For example) is in everyones favourite site speedtest.net. This has meant at least for the Chorus LFC regions where they use Alcatel-Lucent 7450's as the handover/aggregation switches we have deliberately introduced buffer bloat to please the RSP's - who otherwise get whingy about customers whinging about speedtest not showing 100/30mbit. Of course user education is 'too hard' . -Joel On 11 September 2014 08:03, Michael Richardson wrote: > > >> I don't like when people create their cable plant to match what GPON > >> needs. It's done because of the illusion that long-haul fiber is > >> expensive. It isn't, if you have to dig anyway. The difference in cost > >> of a 12 fiber cable, and a 1000 fiber cable, isn't huge compared to > >> the digging costs. Splicing a 1000 fiber cable isn't huge > >> either. Point-to-point fiber cabling is the way to go. If you then > >> decide to light it up using PON of some kind, fine, that's up to you, > >> at least you have the flexibility to change technology in the future. > > I went through a GPON install. It started as a PtP install. > The problem is that while we were installing for 90% of the way, there were > a number of places where we could not: conduits under highways, etc. > > In *Canada* at least, fiber construction is a regulated activity, and > people who own fiber are required to lease to others who want it. > > So, the GPON because of the 10% of places where we had to lease fiber, > and leasing 2-3 strands is much easier than 1000. In one case, my > understanding was there was only a dozen strands installed, period, under, > for instance, the Trans-Canada highway (quebec hwy 40/25 interchange was > involved). > > I'm not otherwise very fond of the GPON stuff. The "terminals" > are too smart, and not flexible enough, and yes, they had hidden bufferbloat. > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ > ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ > > >