[160144] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jan 31 18:36:57 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABa+6OAmRcvR_06umVjwqf8EFLCz8qiVDGzRxWgB+pfbq1am3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:28:55 -0800
To: Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 31, 2013, at 13:57 , Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> 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
> Interesting. Do you then lose the cost advantage because you need =
home run fiber back to the MMR? Do you have examples of plants built =
with this architecture (I know of one such plant, but I am hoping you =
will turn up more examples.)
>=20
I don't know of any. Yes, it would eliminate part of the theoretical =
cost savings of the PON architecture, but the point is that it would =
provide a technology agnostic last mile infrastructure that could easily =
be used by multiple competing providers and would not prevent a provider =
from using PON if they chose to do so for other reasons.
Owen
