Baldur,
According to Nick Edwards, the OP, the main application is voice, which most any DSLAM will handle easily, and solve his IP PBX line consolidation problem. Instead of physical lines into the PBX, he can use the integrated DSLAM SIP calling capability as the
IP PBX interface. Given that only some of the 1700 lines will be in use simultaneously, that amounts to very little bandwidth.
Data capacity of 10 or 20 Mbps in this environment would be pure gravy, and 100 Mbps is almost certainly not expected, or needed, for "worker huts". I'm assuming the workers are not all tele-surgeons
.🙂
-mel
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:55 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways
On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more expensive to dig and trench.
Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive
and will push 100Mbps over surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at ~24Mbps for long-reach situations.
--
Actually we are told the distances are between 300 meters and 1600 meters. 1700 loops all from a single point. That is going to suck. There will be no vectoring and VDSL speeds starts to drop fast after 500 meters. There is going to be a ton of crosstalk.
If you want to deliver 100 Mbps you will need to rebuild the copper plant such that you isolate bundles of 192 loops in nearby cabinets. You need to build fiber and power out there. You need to invest in multiple decentral DSLAMs.
Regards,
Baldur