On 5/04/2016 9:53 AM, Andy Farkas wrote:
On 05/04/2016 08:59, David Boxall wrote:
How far it can go in the century-or-so anticipated service life, it's
our duty to find out.
David, you've mentioned this "anticipated service life" a few times now.
...
Originally, it was a response to the "shorter life than copper" meme. As
I remember it, original contracts for optical fibre specified a minimum
of 25 years. That was picked up by opponents and compared to the 30-year
service life of copper.
These days (as in ten years ago), network planning generally specifies a
40-year minimum, with an expectation of at least 60. Industry generally
goes with a century, fully anticipating it will last longer. Fibre
that's been in service in the US for about four decades is showing no
signs of degradation, last I heard.
The limitations are not the glass itself, but the coatings, ducts and
associated infrastructure. There's also the factoid that a break can be
expected each year for every 400 (?) kilometres of any network.
--
David Boxall | My figures are just as good
| as any other figures.
http://david.boxall.id.au | I make them up myself, and they
| always give me innocent pleasure.
| --HL Mencken
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
