[LINK] NBN layer 3 services

[Scott Howard]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:37 AM, David Lochrin <dlochrin at d2.net.au> wrote:

> A G-PON seems like a wise choice because at least the basic network is
> ~simple~ and therefore reliable.  The deeper the common end-user protocol
> stack which is layered upon it the more complex it becomes, with potentially
> greater risks for massive stuffups, not to mention the technology lockin to
> Cisco.
>

And is that simplicity (if it even exists) worth the additional cost - both
in CapEx and OpEx - for a PON?  How about the distance limitations of PON
(10-20Km v's 80Km for Active)?  Or the limited diagnostics available with
PON?  Or the reduction in bandwidth that PON gives? (How many times have we
heard people complain about how Telstra's Cable is shared bandwidth - just
like PON is).

Whilst there are some small advantages with PON they are normally far
outweighed by the advantages of an Active Network.

Of course there is technically no need for only one technology to be used.
In many regional areas Active is a clear-cut winner due to the extended
distances and the better diagnostics available. In metro areas there may be
value reasons why PON is better (although I can't think of many...)

  Scott.