Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
Adam, Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate. -mel
On Jun 9, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> wrote: However, if you're talking about fiber service, it's pretty much pure marketing-dept-driven BS, combined with some vague justification of not letting TOR nodes or copyright-ignoring seeders/Warez-providers/etc. overwhelm the network in unexpected ways.
Ah, I did miss that, you're right. We don't have very much GPON up where I am. -Adam Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 6:31:34 PM To: Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> Cc: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>; nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Adam, Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate. -mel
On Jun 9, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> wrote: However, if you're talking about fiber service, it's pretty much pure marketing-dept-driven BS, combined with some vague justification of not letting TOR nodes or copyright-ignoring seeders/Warez-providers/etc. overwhelm the network in unexpected ways.
On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Adam,
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator decision. Mike
On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Adam,
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator decision.
There are also vendor issues involved. I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical line' rate. Which becomes a theoretical thing. If the line cards aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen. And I think the line cards can also be easily over-subscribed. Oh, and due to the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited. So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire. Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is provisioning a GPON infrastructure. Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 10G GPON.
I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber. -mel via cell
On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net> wrote:
On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: Adam,
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator decision.
There are also vendor issues involved. I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical line' rate. Which becomes a theoretical thing. If the line cards aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen. And I think the line cards can also be easily over-subscribed. Oh, and due to the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited.
So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire. Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is provisioning a GPON infrastructure. Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 10G GPON.
Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator decision.
It wasn't an arbitrary decision. The downstream has a single "talker", the OLT, so it can use 100% of the "airtime" for itself to talk to anyone on the port. The upstream on the other hand has 1-32 or even more talkers that all have to be syncrozied to talk at specific times even including guard bands to account for slight differences is time keeping, not only that, not every ONT is at the same fiber distance so an ONT that is closer must wait for a signal from an ONT that is farther to "pass" it. All of this creates some inefficiencies in the upstream. Now, it has gotten better with better technology of course but GPON is already 12-19ish years old. ---------------------------------- Brandon Jackson bjackson@napshome.net On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:12 PM Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber.
-mel via cell
On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net> wrote:
On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: Adam,
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator decision.
There are also vendor issues involved. I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical line' rate. Which becomes a theoretical thing. If the line cards aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen. And I think the line cards can also be easily over-subscribed. Oh, and due to the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited.
So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire. Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is provisioning a GPON infrastructure. Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 10G GPON.
I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against 7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 1000000. By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted for "Enterprise clients". CPE cost hurts in this case. But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the same tree. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mel Beckman Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 4:11 AM To: Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber. -mel via cell
On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net> wrote:
On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: Adam,
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator decision.
There are also vendor issues involved. I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical line' rate. Which becomes a theoretical thing. If the line cards aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen. And I think the line cards can also be easily over-subscribed. Oh, and due to the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited.
So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire. Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is provisioning a GPON infrastructure. Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 10G GPON.
We are rolling out XGS-PON everywhere which is 10G symmetric. Just because the PON runs at 10G, doesn't mean you need to provision all of your customers at 10G. We have a range of residential packages from 150Mbps up to 1Gbps symmetric. The ONT is the same in all situations. There is no SFP cost, due to it being a copper port. If we were to offer residential packages beyond 1G, a CPE swap would be required, but there is little demand for that... yet... The future is bright for PON with NG-PON2, and 50G PON on their way. Regards, Dave On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 08:54, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against 7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 1000000.
By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted for "Enterprise clients". CPE cost hurts in this case. But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the same tree.
Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mel Beckman Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 4:11 AM To: Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber.
-mel via cell
On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net> wrote:
On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: Adam,
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator decision.
There are also vendor issues involved. I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical line' rate. Which becomes a theoretical thing. If the line cards aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen. And I think the line cards can also be easily over-subscribed. Oh, and due to the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited.
So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire. Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is provisioning a GPON infrastructure. Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 10G GPON.
On 6/10/22 10:09, Dave Bell wrote:
We are rolling out XGS-PON everywhere which is 10G symmetric. Just because the PON runs at 10G, doesn't mean you need to provision all of your customers at 10G.
We have a range of residential packages from 150Mbps up to 1Gbps symmetric. The ONT is the same in all situations. There is no SFP cost, due to it being a copper port. If we were to offer residential packages beyond 1G, a CPE swap would be required, but there is little demand for that... yet...
Indeed - XG-PON does not mean you have to deliver 10Gbps to customers. It just makes it easier to offer higher bandwidth that is symmetrical, at what-should-be a lower cost than Active-E, for more customers at the same time. Mark.
ONT always has SFP for PON. It is inside (built-in) – this way is cheaper. OK. In this case, it is not SFP because it is not “pluggable”. 1G and 10G optics have a big cost difference for ONT. From: Dave Bell [mailto:me@geordish.org] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 11:09 AM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Cc: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>; Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage We are rolling out XGS-PON everywhere which is 10G symmetric. Just because the PON runs at 10G, doesn't mean you need to provision all of your customers at 10G. We have a range of residential packages from 150Mbps up to 1Gbps symmetric. The ONT is the same in all situations. There is no SFP cost, due to it being a copper port. If we were to offer residential packages beyond 1G, a CPE swap would be required, but there is little demand for that... yet... The future is bright for PON with NG-PON2, and 50G PON on their way. Regards, Dave On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 08:54, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against 7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 1000000. By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted for "Enterprise clients". CPE cost hurts in this case. But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the same tree. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard<mailto:nanog-bounces%2Bvasilenko.eduard>=huawei.com@nanog.org<mailto:huawei.com@nanog.org>] On Behalf Of Mel Beckman Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 4:11 AM To: Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net<mailto:ray@oneunified.net>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage I’m not mistaken, it also depends on the optics in the splitter, given that GPON is bidirectional single strand fiber. -mel via cell
On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net<mailto:ray@oneunified.net>> wrote:
On 2022-06-09 17:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 6/9/22 4:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: Adam,
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
Why would they mandate such a thing? That seems like purely an operator decision.
There are also vendor issues involved. I am glad that Mel mentioned 'optical line' rate. Which becomes a theoretical thing. If the line cards aren't set up with buffering properly, then line rate won't be seen. And I think the line cards can also be easily over-subscribed. Oh, and due to the two or three step fan-out of 8/16/32, upstream becomes even more limited.
So, if you have FTTH with 1::1 house::port, then you are cooking with fire. Else, it is the luck of the draw in terms of how conservative the ISP is provisioning a GPON infrastructure. Which, I suppose, depends if it is 1G or 10G GPON.
On 6/10/22 09:52, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against 7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 1000000.
By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted for "Enterprise clients". CPE cost hurts in this case. But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the same tree.
Yes, XG-PON. Most FTTH operator stories I've heard of are still running regular GPON, thought. Seems XG-PON has a high barrier-to-entry for el-cheapo home consumers. Mark.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:31:47AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 6/10/22 09:52, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against 7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 1000000.
By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted for "Enterprise clients". CPE cost hurts in this case. But some CPE could be 10GE and another 1GE upstream (10G downstream) on the same tree.
Yes, XG-PON.
Most FTTH operator stories I've heard of are still running regular GPON, thought.
Seems XG-PON has a high barrier-to-entry for el-cheapo home consumers.
You would be surprised. The equipment isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On 6/10/22 17:26, Kord Martin wrote:
Especially when you consider that XGSPON and GPON and coexist.
We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can support both GPON and XG-PON line cards. Just not seeing our market going in that direction yet. Mark.
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 01:23, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can support both GPON and XG-PON line cards.
I've been installing PON equipment for 2+ years where all the ports can be fitted with optics (SFPs) that support both GPON and XGS-PON simultaneously on the same fibre. Aled
On 6/10/22 20:17, Mark Tinka wrote:
We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can support both GPON and XG-PON line cards.
Just not seeing our market going in that direction yet.
This isn't just Huawei. I know at least Adtran can do GPON+XGS-PON in the same chassis, and I'm pretty sure I remember Nokia telling me the same. I'd imagine Calix can, too, if the other two big names in North America have it. I know at least Adtran even has a combo card where the same card can handle optics with all the filters built in to do XGS-PON+GPON on the same fiber without external muxes and only consuming one port. The pricing is even what I'd call not just reasonable but "compelling" for immediate deployment even if you don't plan to use the 10G function since it would of course drastically extend the useful lifespan of that card plus give you in-service upgrades to XGS-PON overlay if you equipped it with suitable optics from the get-go (which are also not overly expensive). Given that the parts clearly exist for combo cards with combo optics, I'd imagine all of the major players have it in their portfolio at this point. The XGS-PON ONTs are still about double the price of the GPON ONTs last I checked. -- Brandon Martin
Less vanity over there? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 7:17:47 PM Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage On 6/10/22 17:26, Kord Martin wrote:
Especially when you consider that XGSPON and GPON and coexist.
We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can support both GPON and XG-PON line cards. Just not seeing our market going in that direction yet. Mark.
On 6/10/22 17:17, Mark Tinka wrote:
We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can support both GPON and XG-PON line cards.
Adtran offers the same functionality. As the wavelengths are different, both GPON and XGSPON can coexist on the same fiber plant with a single OLT transceiver supporting both. We are using Adtran gear for this and it's working fine. -- Jay Hennigan - jay@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
On 6/10/22 12:01, Jared Mauch wrote:
You would be surprised. The equipment isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things.
Fair point, it's not part of our scope at $day_job. Most of the greenfields I'm seeing in my region are standard GPON, and I'm not hearing of existing deployments being upgraded to XG-PON. But then again, perhaps I don't have my hand on the pulse as much as I think I should do :-)... Mark.
GPON is TDM (Time Division Multiplexing). The downstream is essentially OC-48 (2.4Gbps). The OLT sets the clock and each ONT has a specific timeslot for uploading. Some vendors can adjust the timeslot reservations to ‘guarantee’ specific upload speeds to specific ONTs From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+matthew=corp.crocker.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:31 PM To: Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Upstream bandwidth usage CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Adam, Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate. -mel
On Jun 9, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> wrote: However, if you're talking about fiber service, it's pretty much pure marketing-dept-driven BS, combined with some vague justification of not letting TOR nodes or copyright-ignoring seeders/Warez-providers/etc. overwhelm the network in unexpected ways.
On 10/06/2022 00:31, Mel Beckman wrote:
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
Not all residential fiber is asymmetric. Nokia XGS-PON supports 9.953 Tx/Rx (e.g. LTF7226 transceiver).
On 10/06/2022 00:31, Mel Beckman wrote:
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate. Not all residential fiber is asymmetric. Nokia XGS-PON supports 9.953 Tx/Rx (e.g. LTF7226 transceiver). XGS-PON isn't Nokia specific and can be bought from many other vendors. Even as probably no one is deploying XG-PON in new deployments (10/2.5G), I don't believe ISP start selling symmetrical services to residential customers as a standard, even if the PON itself is symmetrical. I know you can get from many providers a symmetrical service on G-PON, but
On Friday, 10 June 2022 10:15:15 CEST Chris Hills wrote: that is an option, not the default. Does anyone know the Asian market where they are using E-PON? After my very short search it seems they provide best effort up to 1G without any real plans...
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 1:22 PM Karsten Thomann via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
On 10/06/2022 00:31, Mel Beckman wrote:
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate. Not all residential fiber is asymmetric. Nokia XGS-PON supports 9.953 Tx/Rx (e.g. LTF7226 transceiver). XGS-PON isn't Nokia specific and can be bought from many other vendors. Even as probably no one is deploying XG-PON in new deployments (10/2.5G), I don't believe ISP start selling symmetrical services to residential customers as a standard, even if the PON itself is symmetrical. I know you can get from many providers a symmetrical service on G-PON, but
On Friday, 10 June 2022 10:15:15 CEST Chris Hills wrote: that is an option, not the default.
Does anyone know the Asian market where they are using E-PON? After my very short search it seems they provide best effort up to 1G without any real plans...
My question is always: how are people using these technologies doing queue management. I took apart one ONT so far, it supported RED and hardware flow control, but if it were configured or not, couldn't tell. Sonic (SF) had about 90ms of buffering in their upstream. -- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
On 6/11/22 22:20, Karsten Thomann via NANOG wrote:
Does anyone know the Asian market where they are using E-PON? After my very short search it seems they provide best effort up to 1G without any real plans...
When I was in Malaysia years back, we did use ZTE for some EPON services. But we retired those and moved to GPON. Mark.
I dug out this old thread again... https://www.broadband.io/c/get-broadband-grant-alerts-news/the-brothers-wisp... What is the request/grant latency in various gpons? DOCSIS-LL has it below 2ms, I think. On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 12:00 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
On 6/11/22 22:20, Karsten Thomann via NANOG wrote:
Does anyone know the Asian market where they are using E-PON? After my very short search it seems they provide best effort up to 1G without any real plans...
When I was in Malaysia years back, we did use ZTE for some EPON services. But we retired those and moved to GPON.
Mark.
-- A pithy note on VOQs vs SQM: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/juniper/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
Right. But MOST is, which is what matters for the trend. Existing asymmetric PONs is unlikely to be replaced for the next 20 years. -mel via cell
On Jun 11, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Chris Hills <chaz@chaz6.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2022 00:31, Mel Beckman wrote:
Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate.
Not all residential fiber is asymmetric. Nokia XGS-PON supports 9.953 Tx/Rx (e.g. LTF7226 transceiver).
participants (18)
-
Adam Thompson -
Aled Morris -
Brandon Jackson -
Brandon Martin -
Chris Hills -
Dave Bell -
Dave Taht -
Jared Mauch -
Jay Hennigan -
Karsten Thomann -
Kord Martin -
Mark Tinka -
Matthew Crocker -
Mel Beckman -
Michael Thomas -
Mike Hammett -
Raymond Burkholder -
Vasilenko Eduard