Superhub : Just got the SuperHub 3

[vm_tech]

The node isn't the bottle neck. The CMTS port on the other hand...

[Sephiroth]

Depends on the number of homes connected to the node. The more you can chuck down through extra fibres at the node or WDM the better. Of course you are right, there has to be CMTS capacity in terms of ports. But in the end it boils down to homes connected per node, which drives the demand.

[vm_tech]

I both agree and disagree with you. The bottle neck is the CMTS port, but you are correct in saying that the number of homes connected to the node affects this. The network I work on has a few different designs, the earlier stuff was 2100 home build, which a few years back had new fibres to break it down to 525 build. The rest of the stuff was 525 build originally. DWM has recently been used to push the node deeper into the network in my area (replacing an RF amp). So effectively the main node has another node running off of it, which has its own CMTS port

[Sephiroth]

So we are in agreement actually. What you say makes perfect sense to me. You're not on Reading by any chance? Is that 2100/525 homes passed per node or connected? If my RG41 5 postcode is anything to go by, that would be homes passed where I've calculated by survey between 500 & 600 homes passed.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But if they pinched it from another set, the misery continues. I'd say they were more likely to upgrade their optical systems to uniformly use WDM so that at least 16 channels could go down one fibre. (This is just the downstream we're talking about - corresponding upgrades for the upstream would be necessary, a different topic). Or they would lay more fibres.

Igni may well get stuck in to us both!

The fibre isn't a problem. The issues preventing additional downstream channels are either side. The capacity of line cards / Edge QAMs at the VM side and the RF capacity of node and amplifiers towards the customer.

WDM allows splitting of nodes without additional fibre, multiplexing nodes onto the same fibre pair, not delivery of more bandwidth to each node.

---------- Post added at 14:37 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

Originally Posted by vm_tech

I both agree and disagree with you. The bottle neck is the CMTS port, but you are correct in saying that the number of homes connected to the node affects this. The network I work on has a few different designs, the earlier stuff was 2100 home build, which a few years back had new fibres to break it down to 525 build. The rest of the stuff was 525 build originally. DWM has recently been used to push the node deeper into the network in my area (replacing an RF amp). So effectively the main node has another node running off of it, which has its own CMTS port

So this is resegmentation, however rather than running new fibre all the way from hubsite or headend to each new node the existing fibre goes to a WDM mux colocated with the previous node, and new fibre is run from the original node only.

Removes the need for new long fibre runs; new fibre is only installed on that last few hundred feet in the field and however long in the hubsite/headend between the WDM mux and the Edge QAMs / digital return modulators / media converters / whatever.

Doesn't change how many channels each node can use unless the node's capabilities were the only bottleneck, but reduces homes passed per node.

To allow more downstream and, indeed, upstream channels to be used is why lucky people like the good tech here are supervising replacement of 750MHz / 860MHz total capacity plant, upstream going no higher than 5-50 or 5-65MHz, with 1.2GHz plant split at 5-85MHz up, 108MHz-1.218GHz down, with diplexers field replaceable to move the split to 5-204MHz up, 258MHz-1.218GHz down.

[vm_tech]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So we are in agreement actually. What you say makes perfect sense to me. You're not on Reading by any chance? Is that 2100/525 homes passed per node or connected? If my RG41 5 postcode is anything to go by, that would be homes passed where I've calculated by survey between 500 & 600 homes passed.

Homes passed. Nope I don't work in Reading. I Know how the Reading network is from a service tech perspective, because I've worked there when I was a service tech, but not sure from a Network Engineer perspective. But in my area on the original 2100 build, what you think is a fibre node cabinet may not necessarily be a fibre node, so without actual plans it would be hard to difficult to calculate exactly how many homes are passed.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The fibre isn't a problem. The issues preventing additional downstream channels are either side. The capacity of line cards / Edge QAMs at the VM side and the RF capacity of node and amplifiers towards the customer.

WDM allows splitting of nodes without additional fibre, multiplexing nodes onto the same fibre pair, not delivery of more bandwidth to each node.

---------- Post added at 14:37 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------



So this is resegmentation, however rather than running new fibre all the way from hubsite or headend to each new node the existing fibre goes to a WDM mux colocated with the previous node, and new fibre is run from the original node only.

Removes the need for new long fibre runs; new fibre is only installed on that last few hundred feet in the field and however long in the hubsite/headend between the WDM mux and the Edge QAMs / digital return modulators / media converters / whatever.

Doesn't change how many channels each node can use unless the node's capabilities were the only bottleneck, but reduces homes passed per node.

The first part of what you said was the point I was trying to get across. And yes you're correct In what you said in the second part. So the original node no has 2 CMTS ports rather than one, although this doesn't double the capacity as the ports aren't evenly split as such, but it does mean the amp feeding the most customers will have the extra capacity. And obviously going forward more wavelengths can be used to reseg that node even further

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by vm_tech

The first part of what you said was the point I was trying to get across. And yes you're correct In what you said in the second part. So the original node no has 2 CMTS ports rather than one, although this doesn't double the capacity as the ports aren't evenly split as such, but it does mean the amp feeding the most customers will have the extra capacity. And obviously going forward more wavelengths can be used to reseg that node even further

Yeah I hadn't read your post when I wrote the first one.

https://youtu.be/bOAjzKY51-I?t=1143 is interesting.

[vm_tech]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Yeah I hadn't read your post when I wrote the first one.

https://youtu.be/bOAjzKY51-I?t=1143 is interesting.

Any YouTube video over 30 seconds I can't watch.... Short attention span

[Synthetic]

I suspect the new trialist firmware didn't fix as much as they'd hoped, or they'd have rolled it out to all SH3's by now.

On the other hand, this is VM...

[Sephiroth]

That is not my reading of the trial forums. ButVM play their cards close to their chests, so who knows what is really going on.

[Kushan]

If you're on 200Mbit, having 16 channels opposed to 8 really won't make much difference.

If there's congestion you might get a little bit better speed, but it's so variable it won't really matter, you'll either get full speed on no congestion or less than full speed with congestion - regardless of your modem and CMTS.

The main benefit of having the Hub3 will be when 300Mbit+ arrives as you'll need a 16 channel device for that.

[Synthetic]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That is not my reading of the trial forums. ButVM play their cards close to their chests, so who knows what is really going on.

Ah I see, in that case I would have expected a "public" roll out by now, unless they're waiting for the next update which will fix even more of the issues.

Kush - I'd happily have a 2AC over the 3, don't appear to have any congestion in my area and never have experienced any.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Synthetic

Kush - I'd happily have a 2AC over the 3, don't appear to have any congestion in my area and never have experienced any.

I think a lot of people just want something new and shiny.

[Synthetic]

Originally Posted by Kushan

I think a lot of people just want something new and shiny.

I agree with you there. I'd rather have something stable and useful though

Also the white stands out like a sore thumb against the rest of our TV / other equipment!

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Synthetic

Also the white stands out like a sore thumb against the rest of our TV / other equipment!

Silver / brushed aluminium or black would have fitted in better.