SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3395)7/21/2001 2:18:25 PM
From: ahhaha  Read Replies (1) of 46821
 
These are the questions. I will answer them.

* How and why would a service provider migrate from a revenue-generating ring to a mesh?

Service providers running rings are not necessarily service providers running meshes. It may be the case that the two will remain distinct until the economies of the mesh are recognized as superior at the coming scale of demand for throughput. So some SPs will assuredly migrate from ring to mesh because it's cheaper at the same delivery and they'd accomplish the migration incrementally by installing links off the ring to form the mesh. Some SPs won't migrate because the portion of the mesh they build won't be connected directly into the existing ring structure. They'll build around the legacy ring structure incrementally.

* How does protection and restoration, which is understood in rings, work in a mesh?

It works the same way up to the degree of desired redundancy and response time. If the mesh density is high enough, the response time of available paths is commensurate to and supersedes direct redundancy. Rings don't provide indefinite reliability because if the ring trunk is cut, there is no alternative path. At the limit where rings achieve the same reliability they are topologically equivalent to a mesh, but at orders higher in cost to create.

* What are the cost and service benefits of a Gigabit Ethernet PON over cable and DSL, or even plain old telephone service?

At current throughput demand across all user sectors the benefit of GigE PONS over cable and DSL is video distribution. There are no cost advantages because what can be transferred over cable and DSL in their current forms, can't be transferred as cheaply over E PONS. On the other hand what can be transferred exclusively over E PONS, can't be transferred over the others whatever the cost. At higher throughput demand the current cable and DSL can't handle it at any cost. xE PONS isn't cost effective yet across all users.

That has nothing to do with xE ECI which is cost effective across all users and against all technologies. Currently the PON isn't needed at mass demand level because the Existing Copper Infrastructure can serve the demand and growth in demand for the foreseeable future. Mass demand also includes corporate. Specialty intensive data transfers like those found in science are best served by PON. In a farther future all data will be transferred by PON and the ECI will be torn down. This will occur because the throughput per user will exceed the capabilities of these older technologies.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News