[160224] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Feb 2 16:55:16 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRygmCsz4RVYKUGv_20m4q58okT-CcyoJVDZ1YqqfaHV1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 13:49:25 -0800
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
It seems that you are (deliberately or otherwise) seriously =
misconstruing what I am saying.
I'm saying that if you build an L1 dark fiber system as we have =
described, the purchasers can use it to deploy Ethernet, PON, or any =
other technology.
I'm not saying it's how I would build out a PON only system. That was =
never the goal.
The goal is to provide a municipal L1 service that can be used by ANY =
provider for ANY service, or as close to that as possible.
To make the offering more attractive to low-budget providers, the system =
may also incorporate some L2 services.
Owen
On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> Cross connecting at layer 1 is what I'm saying isn't feasible. If you =
want to simply hand them a fiber then sell dark fiber or DWDM ports but =
trying to create an architecture around PON or other splitters won't =
work because PON splitters aren't compatible with other protocols.
>=20
>=20
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Owen,
>>=20
>> A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the =
foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its =
simple not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The =
optimal open access network (with current or near future technology) is =
well known. Its called Ethernet and the methods to do triple play and =
open access are well documented not to mention already in wide spread =
use. Trying to enforce a layer 1 approach would be more expensive than =
the attempts to make this work with Packet Over SONET or even ATM.
>>=20
>> What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a =
negative? What problem are you tying to solve?
>>=20
>=20
> Ethernet works just fine in the L1 solution I've proposed, so I'm not =
sure why you say it isn't economically viable to do so.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>>=20
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> >
>> >> The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas.
>> >> If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away
>> >> (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are
>> >> 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home
>> >> runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of
>> >> GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my =
assessment
>> >> is correct or not...
>> >
>> > Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit
>> > fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner?
>>=20
>> Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a =
flexible
>> L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low =
barrier
>> to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=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
