Hello all, For those of you with optical last mile networks that are familiar with both GPON and GEPON, would you mind sharing experiences of the differences between GPON and GEPON, especially from an operative perspective? For arguments sake let's assume bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences aren't of major interest. Thanks, Jared
If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or know? Those would be the major differences I would say. We only deploy GPON here. I would say in a system like GEPON or GPON where a port is shared between users more bandwidth is better, and GPON has more capacity than GEPON. I am not sure which region you are in, but in the USA GEPON is almost non-existent from the larger players. Meaning that most GEPON equipment won't be ANSI certified, and might not have FFC certs. Huawei used to have a couple of slides. I looked on some other list and found the following: We considered EPON, and there are some inexpensive solutions from off shore that are worth considering. In the end, we went for GPON for two reasons: One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports 2.4Gbps of total usage on the segment. Two we like our current vendor, Adtran, and we wanted to put OLT cards into the same chassis and manage them using the same systems. The cost premium versus a new vendor for EPON wasn't huge. The CPE is the bigger cost, and we didn't see a real cost difference between EPON ONT and GPON ONT. In the end, the price difference for GPON versus EPON wasn't great - and while GPON is a bit "designed by committee" and there are some valid criticisms there, they're academic in light of the other factors. On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM, <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
For those of you with optical last mile networks that are familiar with both GPON and GEPON, would you mind sharing experiences of the differences between GPON and GEPON, especially from an operative perspective?
For arguments sake let's assume bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences aren't of major interest.
Thanks,
Jared
The solution for selling 1G internet with EPON could be 10GEPON. This is still cheaper than GPON. The idea is that the ONU has a cheap standard 1G transmitter. Apparently you can make a 10G receiver very cheap, it is the transmitter that is expensive. So it is 10G downstream and 1G upstream. With the option to deliver 10G upstream per ONU. It is about reusing standard ethernet components that are dirt cheap - you can buy ethernet SFP modules for peanuts after all and 10G SFP+ modules are not that expensive either. However when we asked some vendors about this, nobody wanted to sell to us because Europe (and USA I assume) is GPON while China is GEPON. They did offer to sell us GPON at 10GEPON pricing instead... Something fishy is going on. It is not about EC compliance as it is just a matter of buying a 10GEPON card instead of GPON card to the same chassis switch. Maybe patents? Regards, Baldur On 6 January 2016 at 14:57, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or know? Those would be the major differences I would say. We only deploy GPON here. I would say in a system like GEPON or GPON where a port is shared between users more bandwidth is better, and GPON has more capacity than GEPON. I am not sure which region you are in, but in the USA GEPON is almost non-existent from the larger players. Meaning that most GEPON equipment won't be ANSI certified, and might not have FFC certs.
Huawei used to have a couple of slides.
I looked on some other list and found the following:
We considered EPON, and there are some inexpensive solutions from off shore that are worth considering.
In the end, we went for GPON for two reasons:
One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports 2.4Gbps of total usage on the segment.
Two we like our current vendor, Adtran, and we wanted to put OLT cards into the same chassis and manage them using the same systems. The cost premium versus a new vendor for EPON wasn't huge. The CPE is the bigger cost, and we didn't see a real cost difference between EPON ONT and GPON ONT.
In the end, the price difference for GPON versus EPON wasn't great - and while GPON is a bit "designed by committee" and there are some valid criticisms there, they're academic in light of the other factors.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM, <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
For those of you with optical last mile networks that are familiar with both GPON and GEPON, would you mind sharing experiences of the differences between GPON and GEPON, especially from an operative perspective?
For arguments sake let's assume bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences aren't of major interest.
Thanks,
Jared
At this point if you haven't deployed any of these system, make sure you know the road map of your vendor for N-GPON2 that is going to be the next wave of deployed pon systems. https://www.calix.com/solutions/next-generation-pon.html Carlos Alcantar Race Communications / Race Team Member 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010 Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / carlos@race.com / http://www.race.com ________________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 8:30 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON The solution for selling 1G internet with EPON could be 10GEPON. This is still cheaper than GPON. The idea is that the ONU has a cheap standard 1G transmitter. Apparently you can make a 10G receiver very cheap, it is the transmitter that is expensive. So it is 10G downstream and 1G upstream. With the option to deliver 10G upstream per ONU. It is about reusing standard ethernet components that are dirt cheap - you can buy ethernet SFP modules for peanuts after all and 10G SFP+ modules are not that expensive either. However when we asked some vendors about this, nobody wanted to sell to us because Europe (and USA I assume) is GPON while China is GEPON. They did offer to sell us GPON at 10GEPON pricing instead... Something fishy is going on. It is not about EC compliance as it is just a matter of buying a 10GEPON card instead of GPON card to the same chassis switch. Maybe patents? Regards, Baldur On 6 January 2016 at 14:57, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or know? Those would be the major differences I would say. We only deploy GPON here. I would say in a system like GEPON or GPON where a port is shared between users more bandwidth is better, and GPON has more capacity than GEPON. I am not sure which region you are in, but in the USA GEPON is almost non-existent from the larger players. Meaning that most GEPON equipment won't be ANSI certified, and might not have FFC certs.
Huawei used to have a couple of slides.
I looked on some other list and found the following:
We considered EPON, and there are some inexpensive solutions from off shore that are worth considering.
In the end, we went for GPON for two reasons:
One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports 2.4Gbps of total usage on the segment.
Two we like our current vendor, Adtran, and we wanted to put OLT cards into the same chassis and manage them using the same systems. The cost premium versus a new vendor for EPON wasn't huge. The CPE is the bigger cost, and we didn't see a real cost difference between EPON ONT and GPON ONT.
In the end, the price difference for GPON versus EPON wasn't great - and while GPON is a bit "designed by committee" and there are some valid criticisms there, they're academic in light of the other factors.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM, <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
For those of you with optical last mile networks that are familiar with both GPON and GEPON, would you mind sharing experiences of the differences between GPON and GEPON, especially from an operative perspective?
For arguments sake let's assume bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences aren't of major interest.
Thanks,
Jared
If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or know? All the interesting bits obviously :) Anybody can read the bitrates, split ratios, compatibility and price of a spec sheet/quote. That however leaves out all the interesting operative aspects such as auxiliary network requirement, service turn up and software tool differences between the two standards. The hard facts only cover the CAPEX part of the TCO equation and the differences between GPON and GEPON are small. Controlling for any parameter roughly equal or if any different within a constant factor of less than two. I'm more interested in the OPEX part, to find out if there are any (significant) differences between the two. I welcome all insight into the operative aspects of GPON and/or GEPON, regardless if you have used one or both.
One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports 2.4Gbps of total usage on the segment. I know this is a quote of a quote, whose origin I do not know, but I would not feel comfortable offering "a true 1Gbps service" on any PON system with less than 10G of capacity. Plain GPON/GEPON is meant to be split vigorously to achieve cost savings in the OSP and as such aren't suitable for gigabit speeds. It's more like a 100M kind of technology.
Jared
It all depends on how it is designed as well. Take a Calix E7-2. You could do a pretty high split per gpon port, I think either 32 or 64 is the max for them, but you're really just shooting yourself in the foot IMO if you're advertising and selling a lot of gig service. A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards are 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps LAG working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not. Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service. For SMB, they end up on a different split, or with SLA end up on an active port on the chassis or on the Juniper access/transport switch. On Jan 8, 2016 4:05 AM, <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or know? All the interesting bits obviously :) Anybody can read the bitrates, split ratios, compatibility and price of a spec sheet/quote. That however leaves out all the interesting operative aspects such as auxiliary network requirement, service turn up and software tool differences between the two standards. The hard facts only cover the CAPEX part of the TCO equation and the differences between GPON and GEPON are small. Controlling for any parameter roughly equal or if any different within a constant factor of less than two. I'm more interested in the OPEX part, to find out if there are any (significant) differences between the two.
I welcome all insight into the operative aspects of GPON and/or GEPON, regardless if you have used one or both.
One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports 2.4Gbps of total usage on the segment. I know this is a quote of a quote, whose origin I do not know, but I would not feel comfortable offering "a true 1Gbps service" on any PON system with less than 10G of capacity. Plain GPON/GEPON is meant to be split vigorously to achieve cost savings in the OSP and as such aren't suitable for gigabit speeds. It's more like a 100M kind of technology.
Jared
Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit. The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference. OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf. Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance. Owen
I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> To: "Josh Reynolds" <josh@kyneticwifi.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>, nanog-isp@mail.com Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit. The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference. OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf. Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance. Owen
Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all. On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> ------------------------------ *From: *"Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> *To: *"Josh Reynolds" <josh@kyneticwifi.com> *Cc: *"NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>, nanog-isp@mail.com *Sent: *Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM *Subject: *Re: GPON vs. GEPON
Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit.
The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance.
Owen
Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID. I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable). Owen
On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all.
On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote: I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> To: "Josh Reynolds" <josh@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:josh@kyneticwifi.com>> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>, nanog-isp@mail.com <mailto:nanog-isp@mail.com> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit.
The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance.
Owen
You are not the average user. On Jan 8, 2016 1:39 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID.
I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable).
Owen
On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all. On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> ------------------------------ *From: *"Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> *To: *"Josh Reynolds" <josh@kyneticwifi.com> *Cc: *"NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>, nanog-isp@mail.com *Sent: *Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM *Subject: *Re: GPON vs. GEPON
Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit.
The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance.
Owen
True. I know a number of average users that also do what I am doing, however. Owen
On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:42 , Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
You are not the average user.
On Jan 8, 2016 1:39 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID.
I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable).
Owen
On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:josh@kyneticwifi.com>> wrote:
Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all.
On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote: I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> To: "Josh Reynolds" <josh@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:josh@kyneticwifi.com>> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>, nanog-isp@mail.com <mailto:nanog-isp@mail.com> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit.
The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance.
Owen
Most reputable enterprise wireless solutions employ band-steering which helps to "force" users onto 5ghz, but still allows clients to connect to 2.4 if it's the only SSID strong enough or if the client only supports 2.4ghz. Band steering largely negates the need to run two SSIDs for optimal band selection. Chris -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 2:39 PM To: Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> Cc: nanog-isp@mail.com; NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID. I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable). Owen
On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all.
On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote: I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> To: "Josh Reynolds" <josh@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:josh@kyneticwifi.com>> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>, nanog-isp@mail.com <mailto:nanog-isp@mail.com> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit.
The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance.
Owen
True, but most households are not using a reputable enterprise wireless solution. Owen
On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:46 , Chris Adams (IT) <Chris.Adams@ung.edu> wrote:
Most reputable enterprise wireless solutions employ band-steering which helps to "force" users onto 5ghz, but still allows clients to connect to 2.4 if it's the only SSID strong enough or if the client only supports 2.4ghz. Band steering largely negates the need to run two SSIDs for optimal band selection.
Chris
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 2:39 PM To: Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> Cc: nanog-isp@mail.com; NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID.
I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable).
Owen
On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all.
On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote: I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> To: "Josh Reynolds" <josh@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:josh@kyneticwifi.com>> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>, nanog-isp@mail.com <mailto:nanog-isp@mail.com> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit.
The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance.
Owen
On 8 January 2016 at 19:46, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
ac = 5 GHz. The only dual frequency standard is 802.11n. But that has resolved itself by now: any router only advertizing "n" is going to be a 2,4GHz only router and even if you find a rare old model that was 5 GHz "n" it still sucks for lacking "ac". In our market everyone delivers "ac" routers by now. One reason for that is that DSL now needs VDSL2 with vectoring and channel bonding, and this brings you to a price point where you also want to get "ac" for little or no extra. Or you are selling high speed internet and the user experience is simply lacking without "ac". But 5 GHz usage is still low because people have a ton of devices that are 2,4 GHz only. Even brand new laptops are sold without a 5 GHz radio. People don't know that they have to check - it is oh but it has wifi and it is brand new, therefore it must have support for the new standard you are talking about! Sometimes we have to send someone out to the customer to demonstrate how crappy his new purchase is. Regards, Baldur
On 9/01/2016 2:48 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
But 5 GHz usage is still low because people have a ton of devices that are 2,4 GHz only. Even brand new laptops are sold without a 5 GHz radio. People don't know that they have to check - it is oh but it has wifi and it is brand new, therefore it must have support for the new standard you are talking about! Sometimes we have to send someone out to the customer to demonstrate how crappy his new purchase is.
Unfortunately almost all of the Internet of Things (IoT) client devices I have come across or purchased lately are 2.4GHz only: - Belkin Wemo - Airconsole - Sense Sleep Tracker - LIFX - Ninjasphere (now defunct, but this was interesting because these appear to have a 5GHz radio in them but don't have the antenna to support it) The explanation I have been given a few times is that the antenna requirements for 5GHz are just too difficult to achieve in what are often small and low powered devices. We're mostly there with phones and PCs though. Reuben
participants (9)
-
Baldur Norddahl -
Carlos Alcantar -
Chris Adams (IT) -
Colton Conor -
Josh Reynolds -
Mike Hammett -
nanog-isp＠mail.com -
Owen DeLong -
Reuben Farrelly