Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements
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,
Hope many agree with me on that, atleast the
individuals involved in deploying and maintaining the
networks would converge on it.
--- ramu <ramu_raskan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> relative to your comment:
> > An active architecture within the field isn
> >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
> > 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
> >deployment and maintainence, complexity etc is
> Agreed, I would too.
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger