Owen, I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is cheap enough in brand new builds) to simply home run every home and maintain that. ISPs that would want to use the shared network in general (>95% in my experience) don't want to maintain the access gear and since there is no clear way to delineate responsibilities when there is an issue its hard. The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 sharing and its not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes that. The thing you have to remember is that muni networks have to be cost effective and that's not just the capital costs. The operational cost in the long term is much greater than the cost of initial gear and fiber install. On Feb 2, 2013 4:54 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
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,
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.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Owen,
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.
What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? What problem are you tying to solve?
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.
Owen
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
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?
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.
Owen
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------