[160143] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jan 31 18:33:56 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwQHO+eBSo+tMokQzFQyV0Wg1M56QOCC4_Dr3Oo0RFWzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:32:49 -0800
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Scott,
Respectfully, you appear to be misinterpreting what I am saying.
I'm saying you put the splitter next to the OLT and then run multiple =
fibers from there to the subscribers IN THE MMR.
Each provider has their own splitters and OLTs, but all the splitters =
are in the MMR and the customers have home
run fiber to the MMR.
In other words:
OLT->SPLITTER->XC to customer port in MMR->Last mile =
infrastructure->ONT->Customer.
instead of the traditional
OLT->Last mile infrastructure->Splitter->ONT->Customer.
All I'm doing is moving the location of the split closer to the OLT and =
making the customer fiber run
longer.
I'm not proposing multiple providers sharing a splitter. I'm proposing =
longer customer runs to the
splitter and putting all of the splitters from all of the providers in =
the same room.
Owen
On Jan 31, 2013, at 14:04 , Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> Respectfully, it doesn't work that way. You have to understand that =
the splitter is a specific part of the PON architecture and they don't =
have multiple outputs to connect to several OLTs like a patch panel or =
even a switch you can VLAN. One fiber goes to the splitter on the =
provider side and then from there it splits into 8/16/32/64 connections =
that go to customers. You can't exchange one of the customer side ports =
to make another provider interface. That's not to say you couldn't =
build a splitter to do just that, but to do that you have to get the =
vendors on board and currently they simply aren't nor are the people who =
build PON networks asking for that feature. You also have to deal with =
the mechanics of turning up the port, ie deciding which OLT to send that =
color to, which kind of kills the passive part of PON.
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 13:27 , Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
>=20
>> 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
>=20
>=20
> Sure it is...
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> If the splitter is out in the neighborhood, then $PROVIDER_1 and =
$PROVIDER_2
> and... all need to build out to every neighborhood.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>>=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
>=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
