[160140] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jan 31 16:45:52 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRy+p3YOEKAHyV2feqRACJCisNDAQf52uQmrzL=SB_BcjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:36:29 -0800
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 31, 2013, at 13:27 , Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> You can't share access from one splitter to multiple OLTs so the =
location of the splitter isn't important. AFAIK there is simply no =
concept for that idea in any of the PON specs and its certainly not =
something that Calix/Adtran/Zhone/Alcatel/$gear_maker are building right =
now. For that matter I can't think of a single piece of gear beyond =
DWDM/CWDM that actually operates are layer 1 to allow that kind of split =
and then its very limited in terms of the channels available and not =
suitable for the kind of deployment I think you're describing.
>=20
Sure it is...
If you have an MMR where all of the customers come together, then you
can cross-connect all of $PROVIDER_1's customers to a splitter provided
by $PROVIDER_1 and cross connect all of $PROVIDER_2's customers to
a splitter provided by $PROVIDER_2, etc.
If the splitter is out in the neighborhood, then $PROVIDER_1 and =
$PROVIDER_2
and... all need to build out to every neighborhood.
If you have the splitter next to the PON gear instead of next to the =
subscribers,
then you remove the relevance of the inability to connect a splitter to =
multiple
OLTs. The splitter becomes the provider interface to the open fiber =
plant.
Owen
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> That's why I'm not advocating for open access, I'm advocating for =
L1/L2 provider
> separation and a requirement that the L1 access itself be open.
>=20
> I have yet to get a firm answer, but as I understand PON, it doesn't =
actually matter
> so much whether you put the splitter/combiner in an MMR or near the =
CPE.
> Obviously, most of the "economy" of PON comes from putting the =
splitter near
> the subscriber, but so does the loss of open access at L1.
>=20
> OTOH, if you build out fiber from a city or neighborhood or whatever =
to an
> independent MMR, I don't believe there's any reason you couldn't =
cross-connect
> various users home-run fibers to splitter/combiners inside the MMR and =
then
> run that to a PON system (if you really wanted to for some reason).
>=20
> Owen
>=20
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:45 , Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Owen,
>>=20
>> The short answer is that you don't today and it will be a long time =
(if ever) before its feasible. Europe is commonly held up as an example =
of an area where open access works and if you stick to DSL networks =
that's true. The problem is that the DSL networks (by and large) in =
Europe aren't expanding and are being overtaken by FTTx and to a lesser =
extent DOCSIS. The reasons why this is so can be debated, but it is =
definitely happening and given that trend there is very little incentive =
for the equipment manufacturers and protocol groups to build in open =
access as a core part of their design as it was in DSL, especially with =
PPPoX authentication. =20
>>=20
>> Now, once networks get to purely active Ethernet things get more =
simple technically, after all you easily do QinQ tagging, but there has =
been little movement even in regulation tolerant Europe to force =
operators to open up and its much less likely to happen here in the US. =
Whats more many of the FTTx builds aren't Ethernet today and doing open =
access on any flavor of PON is so painful operationally that it simply =
won't happen.
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 07:07 , Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
>>=20
>> > Late to the conversation, but I'll chime in that we established a
>> > model in Maine that is working pretty well, at least for =
middle-mile
>> > fiber.
>> >
>> > When we started building out MaineREN (our RON) we decided that =
having
>> > the University own the fiber would tie it up in political red tape.
>> > So much so that it would ultimately not be made available to the
>> > private sector (because incumbents would accuse us of competing =
with
>> > them using public funds). We knew this because we had already =
spent a
>> > year in the legislature fighting off industry lobbyists.
>> >
>> > Obviously there are considerable investments in such infrastructure
>> > that many private companies are unwilling or unable to make in =
rural
>> > areas (ROI takes too long), so we really wanted to make sure that
>> > future facilities would be built out in a way that would allow =
service
>> > providers to expand into the state cheaply, encourage competition, =
and
>> > ultimately provide better services at lower costs.
>> >
>> > The goal was to establish geographically diverse, high stand-count,
>> > rings to reach the majority of the state, so we pitched it in a
>> > public-private partnership to go after Recovery Act funding.
>> >
>>=20
>> That's also a worthy goal, but it doesn't address the issues that
>> are the subject of this conversation. Middle-mile solutions
>> like this are not all that uncommon, even in such backwards
>> places (when it comes to networking infrastructure) as silicon
>> valley.
>>=20
>> Where we still have a serious lack of deployment and virtually no
>> competition, even in most major metros, is the last mile.
>>=20
>> > As of a few months ago the build-out is complete, and the first
>> > networks to make use of the fiber are starting to come online
>> > (including MaineREN).
>> >
>> > The way we did it was to have the state government create a new =
public
>> > utility designation of "Dark Fiber Provider". There are a few =
rules
>> > in place to keep things fair: Mainly they're forbidden to provide =
lit
>> > services and they're required to provide open access to anyone at
>> > published rates.
>> >
>>=20
>> This is definitely a good first step if you can get it through the =
legislative
>> process without having the $TELCOS and $CABLECOS lobby against
>> it to the point of death or dismemberment.
>>=20
>> > The result is "Maine Fiber Company":
>> >
>> > http://www.mainefiberco.com/
>> >
>> > It's still early on, but I'm anxious to see how things look in 10 =
years or so.
>> >
>>=20
>> Sounds great... Now, the $50,000,000 question... How do we replicate
>> that model at the consumer level?
>>=20
>> > A lot of people who like the idea of what we've done aren't sure if
>> > it's a good model to apply for last mile fiber. Personally, I =
think
>> > replicating this model to deliver dark fiber to the home (much like
>> > electricity) is the only way we'll be able to shield providers from
>> > having to make major investments to deliver the level of service we
>> > really need. By keeping it as a dark-fiber only service, you =
create
>> > an environment where there is competition instead of one provider
>> > keeping speeds low and prices high.
>>=20
>> That's certainly the ideal, yes.
>>=20
>> > I initially thought having L2 separation would be good in that =
service
>> > changes could be done remotely, etc. But after giving it some
>> > thought, I think it places way too much potential for L2 to be the
>> > bottleneck or source of problematic service and if it's provided by =
a
>> > public utility or municipality it could take very long to fix (if =
it
>> > get's fixed at all) due to politics and budget hawks. I really =
want
>> > to have choice between providers even at the L2 level.
>>=20
>> There are cases where the lack of L2 services could pose a barrier
>> to entry for competition. That's why I proposed the following =
requirements:
>>=20
>> 1. Must sell dark fiber to any purchaser.
>> 2. Must sell dark fiber to all purchasers on equal terms.
>> (There must be a published price list and there cannot be =
deviations
>> from that price list. If the price list is modified, existing =
customers
>> receive the new pricing at the beginning of their next =
billing cycle.)
>> 3. May provide value-added L2 services
>> 4. If L2 services are provided, they are also subject to rule 2.
>> 5. May not sell L3 or higher level services.
>> 6. May not hold ownership or build any form of alliance or =
affiliation with
>> a provider of L3 or higher level services.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> =
wrote:
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>> From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org>
>> >>
>> >>> I am a big proponent of muni-owned dark fiber networks. I want to
>> >>> be 100% clear about what I advocate here:
>> >>>
>> >>> - Muni-owned MMR space, fiber only, no active equipment allowed. =
A
>> >>> big cross connect room, where the muni-fiber ends and providers =
are
>> >>> all allowed to colocate their fiber term on non-discriminatory =
terms.
>> >>
>> >>> - 4-6 strands per home, home run back to the muni-owned MMR =
space.
>> >>> No splitters, WDM, etc, home run glass. Terminating on an optical
>> >>> handoff inside the home.
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets =
smaller
>> >> players play. Does your position (likely more deeply thought out =
than
>> >> mine) permit Layer 2 with Muni ONT and Ethernet handoff, as long =
as clients
>> >> are *also* permitted to get a Layer 1 patch to a provider in the =
fashion you
>> >> suggest?
>> >>
>> >> (I concur with your 3-pair delivery, which makes this more =
practical on an
>> >> M-A-C basis, even if it might require some users to have multiple =
ONTs...)
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> -- jra
>> >> --
>> >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink =
jra@baylink.com
>> >> Designer The Things I Think =
RFC 2100
>> >> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 =
Land Rover DII
>> >> St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 =
727 647 1274
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ray Patrick Soucy
>> > Network Engineer
>> > University of Maine System
>> >
>> > T: 207-561-3526
>> > F: 207-561-3531
>> >
>> > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
>> > www.maineren.net
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> Scott Helms=20
>> Vice President of Technology=20
>> ZCorum=20
>> (678) 507-5000=20
>> --------------------------------=20
>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms=20
>> --------------------------------=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Scott Helms=20
> Vice President of Technology=20
> ZCorum=20
> (678) 507-5000=20
> --------------------------------=20
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms=20
> --------------------------------=20
