nanog mailing list archives
Re: Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:57:20 +0100 (CET)
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Jeff Kell wrote:
So are we doomed to having physically separated fiber plants with suitable connectors / jumpers dedicated to video? Anyone been down this snaky looking path?
Yes. Someone comes up with the brilliant idea to have APC on all new installs, people end up using UPC patch cables anyway, and mayhem ensues. You end up with having to stock substantially more patch cables than otherwise, because now you need LC/UPC-SC/UPC and LC/UPC-SC-APC, you need SC/APC-SC/APC, you need SC/UPC-SC/APC and so on. It's a mess.
If you need to do HFC in low-volume, do APC on those only. I believe it's going to be cheaper in the long run than trying to go APC everywhere.
If a majority is going to be HFC, then you might be better off to go APC everywhere.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC Jeff Kell (Nov 19)
- Re: Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 19)
- Re: Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC Walter Keen (Nov 19)
- Re: Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 19)
- Re: Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC Alex Brooks (Nov 19)
- Re: Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC Lamar Owen (Nov 19)
- Re: Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC Carlos Alcantar (Nov 20)
- RE: Fiber terminations -- UPC vs APC Frank Bulk (Nov 20)
