[160258] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Sat Feb 2 22:32:15 2013
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 19:32:03 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Mail-Followup-To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxVpKtxAYw0JAARkV6sEmWngb9xyHVOtwUJJ6amDVZWoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:17:24PM -0500, Scott Helms =
wrote:
> Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably goi=
ng
> to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that y=
ou
> didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth of homes and
> businesses in your area your chances of getting both the numbers right
> _and_ the locations are pretty slim. Also, you're going to have to replace
> gear no matter where it is core or nodes on a ring. Granted gear that
> lives in a CO can be less expensive but its not that much of a difference
> (~1% of gear costs). Having a ring topology is basically the best way
> we've come up with as of yet to hedge your bets, especially since you can
> extend your ring when you need.
I'm not sure I understand your growth argument; both models will
require additional build costs for growth to the network, and I
think they roughly parallel the tradeoff's we've been discussing.
As for the gear, I agree that the cost per port for the equipment
providing service (Ethernet switch, GPON bits, WDM mux, whatever)
is likely to be roughly similar in a CO and in the field. There's
not a huge savings on the gear itself.
But I would strongly disagree the overall costs, and services are
similar. Compare a single CO of equipment to a network with 150
pedistals of active gear around a city. The CO can have one
generator, and one battery bank. Most providers don't even put
generator with each pedistal, and must maintain separate battery
banks for each. A single CO could relatively cheaply have 24x7x356
hands to correct problems and swap equipment, where as the distributed
network will add drive time to the equation and require higher
staffing and greater costs (like the truck and fuel).
Geography is a huge factor though. My concept of home running all fiber
would be an extremely poor choice for extremely rural, low density
networks. Your ring choice would be much, much better. On the flip
side, in a high density world, say downtown NYC, my dark fiber to the
end user network is far cheaper than building super-small rings and
maintaining the support gear for the equipment (generators and
batteries, if you can get space for them in most buildings).
Still, I think direct dark fiber has lower lifecycle costs for 70-80% of
the population living in cities and suburban areas.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)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=1fbq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr--
