----- Original Message -----
From: "Masataka Ohta" <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
So splitting responsabilities can be an annoyance if it becomes very visible to the end users.
No different from competing ISPs using DSL or PON.
Sure it is: competing ISPs in a traditional situation would be using each their own PHY.
Another aspect: customers espect to be able to switch seamlessly from one ISP to the next. But ISP-2 can't take over from ISP-1 until ISP-1 has relinquised control over the line to the end user.
No different from competing ISPs using DSL or PON.
Sure it is: there it's *much worse*.
In a layer 1 scenario, it means ISP-1 has to physically go and deinstall their CPE and disconnect strand from their OLT, and then ISP-2 can do the reverse and reconnect evrything to provide services.
No. Just say optical MDF.
Doesn't preclude the need to swap different models of ONTs.
What happens when ISP-1 isn't interested in a quick disconnect and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end use without service ?
You assume ISP-1 quickly stop servicing the end user, don't you?
I assume everyone will behave, because they're all *the customers of me, the municipality*, and they have a vested interest in being good actors.
In a layer2 service, it is a matter of reconfiguring the OLT to pass ethernet packets to a different VLAN to a different ISP. No physical
What happens when OLT operator isn't interested in a quick reconfiguration, ISP-1 quickly stop servicing the end user and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end user without service?
Again, *the city* is the OLT operator, in a L2 scenario, and I will flip the customer over almost immediately. Yes, I know subs will try to game things occasionally; we'll likely be able to cope with that. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274