Yeah, you sound like an equipment vendor whose main customers are incumbent telco's in a few rich markets :-). You are right. My message was pretty much geared toward incumbents. But the majority of the access/aggregation is in their possessions, isn’t it? They typically have ducts that were huge for copper that is already extracted. One more fiber cable would be easy.
Agree that for competitive carriers DWDM would be more often needed. Even for competitive carriers, it makes sense to evaluate the cost to put fiber into the duct of incumbents. Especially because in some countries the price would be regulated. It would solve the problem forever – no need for the DWDM speed upgrade. I am calling to just not forget to evaluate this option too. Reminder: dark fiber is the best technical solution, for sure. Ed/ From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark@tinka.africa] Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:39 AM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Routed optical networks On 5/3/23 08:20, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: I would risk to say a little more on this. Indeed, maybe the situation (in many countries) when the Carrier sells a lot of TDM services. But in general, packet services are enough these days for many carriers/regions. There aren't enough TDM services to warrant DWDM, nowadays. The reason for DWDM is mainly being driven by Ethernet, and IP. At any reasonable scale, it's actually pretty hard to buy a TDM service, in most markets. Additionally, I am sure that in many countries/Metro it is cheaper to lay down a new fiber than to provision DWDM, even if it is a pizza box. I disagree. Existing fibre may be cheap because it was laid down a decade or more ago, en masse, by several operators. So the market would be experiencing a glut, not because it is cheap to open up the roads and plant more fibre, but because there is so much of it to begin with. At worst, there is still enough duct space that the operator can blow more fibre. But when that duct gets full, and there are no more free ducts available, or another route needs to get built for whatever reason, it is a rather costly affair to open up the roads and trunk some fibre, in any market. So no, DWDM is not more expensive, if you are delivering services at scale. It is actually cheaper. It is only more expensive if you are small scale, because in some markets, the fibre glut means you can buy dark fibre for cheaper than you can light it with DWDM. But this is a situation unique to small operators, not large ones. The colored interface is still very expensive. This only matters for the line side. For client-facing, it's not a drama. And you typically buy more optics for the client side than you do the line side. Of course, there are some Cities (not “towns”) where it is very expensive or maybe even impossible to lay down a new fiber. Yes, in the majority of cases, it is cheaper to lay down fiber. I think what you mean to say is that in the majority of cases where there is fibre glut, and dark fibre is a market option, buying fibre is cheaper than lighting it with DWDM. This is true. But I think that on a global scale, this is the exception, not the rule. In general, you are not likely to be able to buy dark fibre, cheaply or otherwise, if you look at all markets in the world. Hence, the importance of DWDM for the Metro is overestimated. Again, only if you are small scale. If you are a large scale operator with as many IP/Ethernet customers as you have Transport, DWDM is essential. Use only routers. Provision enough fiber. Have always 1 router hop to the aggregation (hub-spoke topology), no routers chaining in the ring. If fiber is not enough – then use normal DWDM with an external transponder. Routers would be still in hub-spoke topology. Yeah, you sound like an equipment vendor whose main customers are incumbent telco's in a few rich markets :-). The life of the average operator, around the world, is far less glamorous. Mark.
On 5/3/23 11:10, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
You are right. My message was pretty much geared toward incumbents.
But the majority of the access/aggregation is in their possessions, isn’t it?
Generally, I'd say yes. But to the OP's survey, the incumbents also have the majority installations of copper, and are least likely to use MPLS all the way into the Access. They would more typically use 802.1Q or Q-in-Q. Smaller operators green-fielding Access networks will rely mostly on fibre (particularly GPON) and MPLS all the way into the Access. It's just that FTTx services are growing at a much faster rate than copper-based services are. Depending on the market, it may not always be the incumbent witnessing this growth, although when they do finally get their act together, they can make up for lost time rather quickly.
They typically have ducts that were huge for copper that is already extracted.
One more fiber cable would be easy.
Agreed.
Agree that for competitive carriers DWDM would be more often needed.
Even for competitive carriers, it makes sense to evaluate the cost to put fiber into the duct of incumbents.
Especially because in some countries the price would be regulated.
It would solve the problem forever – no need for the DWDM speed upgrade.
Well, the only issue with that is that some markets make it more difficult to re-open up the roads for several years. Some worse than others. In such a case, DWDM is your best option.
I am calling to just not forget to evaluate this option too. Reminder: dark fiber is the best technical solution, for sure.
In general, most operators, regardless of size, will prefer dark fibre as a first option, especially for short spans like in the metro. But of course, real life is vastly different. Mark.
Incumbents are great at momentum. They're not great at innovation, customer experience, etc. They only reason most incumbents are still relevant is due to their prior market size. Around here, the incumbent telcos still have lead-sheathed cables in the ground, not removing anything. Often, things are abandoned in place, unless there's a good enough reason to remove it. I'm placing my own ducts into the ground and putting my own fiber in it. I still put in DWDM between my facilities to minimize the consumption of resources. A couple of hundred bucks for a DWDM optic is cheaper than a strand between two locations. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> To: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 4:10:19 AM Subject: RE: Routed optical networks
Yeah, you sound like an equipment vendor whose main customers are incumbent telco's in a few rich markets :-). You are right. My message was pretty much geared toward incumbents. But the majority of the access/aggregation is in their possessions, isn’t it? They typically have ducts that were huge for copper that is already extracted. One more fiber cable would be easy.
Agree that for competitive carriers DWDM would be more often needed. Even for competitive carriers, it makes sense to evaluate the cost to put fiber into the duct of incumbents. Especially because in some countries the price would be regulated. It would solve the problem forever – no need for the DWDM speed upgrade. I am calling to just not forget to evaluate this option too. Reminder: dark fiber is the best technical solution, for sure. Ed/ From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark@tinka.africa] Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:39 AM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Routed optical networks On 5/3/23 08:20, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: I would risk to say a little more on this. Indeed, maybe the situation (in many countries) when the Carrier sells a lot of TDM services. But in general, packet services are enough these days for many carriers/regions. There aren't enough TDM services to warrant DWDM, nowadays. The reason for DWDM is mainly being driven by Ethernet, and IP. At any reasonable scale, it's actually pretty hard to buy a TDM service, in most markets. <blockquote> Additionally, I am sure that in many countries/Metro it is cheaper to lay down a new fiber than to provision DWDM, even if it is a pizza box. </blockquote> I disagree. Existing fibre may be cheap because it was laid down a decade or more ago, en masse, by several operators. So the market would be experiencing a glut, not because it is cheap to open up the roads and plant more fibre, but because there is so much of it to begin with. At worst, there is still enough duct space that the operator can blow more fibre. But when that duct gets full, and there are no more free ducts available, or another route needs to get built for whatever reason, it is a rather costly affair to open up the roads and trunk some fibre, in any market. So no, DWDM is not more expensive, if you are delivering services at scale. It is actually cheaper. It is only more expensive if you are small scale, because in some markets, the fibre glut means you can buy dark fibre for cheaper than you can light it with DWDM. But this is a situation unique to small operators, not large ones. <blockquote> The colored interface is still very expensive. </blockquote> This only matters for the line side. For client-facing, it's not a drama. And you typically buy more optics for the client side than you do the line side. <blockquote> Of course, there are some Cities (not “towns”) where it is very expensive or maybe even impossible to lay down a new fiber. Yes, in the majority of cases, it is cheaper to lay down fiber. </blockquote> I think what you mean to say is that in the majority of cases where there is fibre glut, and dark fibre is a market option, buying fibre is cheaper than lighting it with DWDM. This is true. But I think that on a global scale, this is the exception, not the rule. In general, you are not likely to be able to buy dark fibre, cheaply or otherwise, if you look at all markets in the world. <blockquote> Hence, the importance of DWDM for the Metro is overestimated. </blockquote> Again, only if you are small scale. If you are a large scale operator with as many IP/Ethernet customers as you have Transport, DWDM is essential. <blockquote> Use only routers. Provision enough fiber. Have always 1 router hop to the aggregation (hub-spoke topology), no routers chaining in the ring. If fiber is not enough – then use normal DWDM with an external transponder. Routers would be still in hub-spoke topology. </blockquote> Yeah, you sound like an equipment vendor whose main customers are incumbent telco's in a few rich markets :-). The life of the average operator, around the world, is far less glamorous. Mark.
There are places in the world (like Middle East) where telephony system did not exist historically. Then no copper, then no ducts. Then new fiber is very difficult. But much more places where the Telephony system did exist. Ed/ From: Mike Hammett [mailto:nanog@ics-il.net] Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 4:50 PM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Cc: Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Routed optical networks Incumbents are great at momentum. They're not great at innovation, customer experience, etc. They only reason most incumbents are still relevant is due to their prior market size. Around here, the incumbent telcos still have lead-sheathed cables in the ground, not removing anything. Often, things are abandoned in place, unless there's a good enough reason to remove it. I'm placing my own ducts into the ground and putting my own fiber in it. I still put in DWDM between my facilities to minimize the consumption of resources. A couple of hundred bucks for a DWDM optic is cheaper than a strand between two locations. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ________________________________ From: "Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> To: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa<mailto:mark@tinka.africa>>, nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 4:10:19 AM Subject: RE: Routed optical networks
Yeah, you sound like an equipment vendor whose main customers are incumbent telco's in a few rich markets :-). You are right. My message was pretty much geared toward incumbents. But the majority of the access/aggregation is in their possessions, isn’t it? They typically have ducts that were huge for copper that is already extracted. One more fiber cable would be easy.
Agree that for competitive carriers DWDM would be more often needed. Even for competitive carriers, it makes sense to evaluate the cost to put fiber into the duct of incumbents. Especially because in some countries the price would be regulated. It would solve the problem forever – no need for the DWDM speed upgrade. I am calling to just not forget to evaluate this option too. Reminder: dark fiber is the best technical solution, for sure. Ed/ From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark@tinka.africa] Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:39 AM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com<mailto:vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>>; nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Routed optical networks On 5/3/23 08:20, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: I would risk to say a little more on this. Indeed, maybe the situation (in many countries) when the Carrier sells a lot of TDM services. But in general, packet services are enough these days for many carriers/regions. There aren't enough TDM services to warrant DWDM, nowadays. The reason for DWDM is mainly being driven by Ethernet, and IP. At any reasonable scale, it's actually pretty hard to buy a TDM service, in most markets. Additionally, I am sure that in many countries/Metro it is cheaper to lay down a new fiber than to provision DWDM, even if it is a pizza box. I disagree. Existing fibre may be cheap because it was laid down a decade or more ago, en masse, by several operators. So the market would be experiencing a glut, not because it is cheap to open up the roads and plant more fibre, but because there is so much of it to begin with. At worst, there is still enough duct space that the operator can blow more fibre. But when that duct gets full, and there are no more free ducts available, or another route needs to get built for whatever reason, it is a rather costly affair to open up the roads and trunk some fibre, in any market. So no, DWDM is not more expensive, if you are delivering services at scale. It is actually cheaper. It is only more expensive if you are small scale, because in some markets, the fibre glut means you can buy dark fibre for cheaper than you can light it with DWDM. But this is a situation unique to small operators, not large ones. The colored interface is still very expensive. This only matters for the line side. For client-facing, it's not a drama. And you typically buy more optics for the client side than you do the line side. Of course, there are some Cities (not “towns”) where it is very expensive or maybe even impossible to lay down a new fiber. Yes, in the majority of cases, it is cheaper to lay down fiber. I think what you mean to say is that in the majority of cases where there is fibre glut, and dark fibre is a market option, buying fibre is cheaper than lighting it with DWDM. This is true. But I think that on a global scale, this is the exception, not the rule. In general, you are not likely to be able to buy dark fibre, cheaply or otherwise, if you look at all markets in the world. Hence, the importance of DWDM for the Metro is overestimated. Again, only if you are small scale. If you are a large scale operator with as many IP/Ethernet customers as you have Transport, DWDM is essential. Use only routers. Provision enough fiber. Have always 1 router hop to the aggregation (hub-spoke topology), no routers chaining in the ring. If fiber is not enough – then use normal DWDM with an external transponder. Routers would be still in hub-spoke topology. Yeah, you sound like an equipment vendor whose main customers are incumbent telco's in a few rich markets :-). The life of the average operator, around the world, is far less glamorous. Mark.
On 5/5/23 15:49, Mike Hammett wrote:
Incumbents are great at momentum. They're not great at innovation, customer experience, etc. They only reason most incumbents are still relevant is due to their prior market size.
Most true, and even then, there is a visible change to the bottom line on how much money they print now vs. then, despite the fact that they are still printing money. This means that they all know that the dark day is looming, and even if they can see it drawing closer, telco's are stuck with not knowing what to do about it. I mean, if anyone remembers the days of SMS (2000 - 2008) - that was as free as money printing gets. Mark.
participants (3)
-
Mark Tinka -
Mike Hammett -
Vasilenko Eduard