On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei < jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 13-02-04 15:46, Scott Helms wrote:
I certainly agree that fiber plant is in general easier than copper plant to maintain. My main concern is that in this case Jay is considering allowing not only different vendors but different technologies on the same fiber plant.
If you are strictly a layer 1 provider, I would assume that you have setup properly documented procedures and responsabilities in case of faults.
Operationally you're never gonna get here. Installers are guys making $200 bucks an install whether it takes them 30 minutes or 4 hours. Most major operators (all I've worked with) struggle to get their own employees to do troubleshooting and installs correctly. We actually had to write software to ensure that installers are doing basic verification of levels before they leave home.
Perhaps the ISP is responsible for debugging their problems and if they can show a layer 1 problem, then the city steps in, disconnects the strand at both ends and uses its own L1 equipment to test the strand.
If the rules are clear, then ISPs would choose OLT and ONT equipment which provides remote debugging capabilities since physical visits to the city owned aggregation point will be difficult.
In really small numbers this is OK. The problem is that there seems to be a thought that a given network will have more than 4-5 dark fiber connections and that they will be a part of the pay back. Getting staff to even log into the web client of the OLT is generally problematic since the guys who do installs aren't normally allowed or even capable of safely using the EMS console. If they can even get the "right" version of Java running to get the JIMC working :( -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------