Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements
Ramu,
When I stated that the general notion of active
components floating around not being a good idea was
not based on the fact that most of the current
deployments are based on active components. We all
know that quite a lot of that is true, but we also
know the problems with managing and maintaining the
active components within the network is a hassle that
cannot be avoided in the active component model.
If it is possible to go with a all passive model,
which is getting to be a possibility with so much of
development and hashing out being done now, then it
becomes a easier deployment and over the long run,
maintainence issue.
Hope many agree with me on that, atleast the
individuals involved in deploying and maintaining the
networks would converge on it.
SG
--- ramu <ramu_raskan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sukanta:
> relative to your comment:
> > An active architecture within the field isn
> general
> >is not a good idea,
>
> I'm not sure what you base this on, but for all
> intents and purposes every major deployment in
> existence has active components in the field.
> All-passive is in fact the "new idea" as is all
> optical.
>
>
> > I would be extremely interested in discussing the
> >active component network on different scale of
> >operation as opposed to a PON as far as cost/ease
> of
> >deployment and maintainence, complexity etc is
> >concerned.
>
> Agreed, I would too.
>
>
>
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
> http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/