Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Scott Helms wrote: Is it more expensive to home-run every home than to put splitters in the neighborhood? Yes. Is it enough more expensive that the tradeoffs cannot be overcome? I remain unconvinced. This completely depends on the area and the goals of the network. In most cases for muni networks back hauling everything is more expensive. Bot of you are wrong. There is no reason fiber is more expensive than copper, which means SS is cheap, as cheap as copper. As most of the cost is cable laying, which is little sensitive to the number of twisted pairs or fibers in the cable, PON, with splitters and lengthy drop cables (if you want a fiber shared by many subscribers, you need a lengthy drop cables from a splitter), can not be less expensive than SS. PON, which is expensive, is preferred by some carriers merely because it makes competition impossible. Masataka Ohta
WhoisGuard
Is there any person from WhoisGuard . com on this group. or any one can help me with an effective contact, all mails to their ' supp...@whoisguard.com' is not been acknowledged or answered. Joshua
Global caches
Dear Nanog Community, Some CDN providers such as Akamai and Google (often called Global Google Cache) are offering caches to ISPs. It is very convenient for small ISPs to alleviate bandwidth towards the provider, but also the CDN provider benefits by putting source of data closer to the user resulting in far better performance. Does anybody know of any other CDN providers that offer similar caches? Looking forward for your replies. Regards, Kyle
Re: Global caches
On 02/04/13 14:03 +, Kyle Camilleri wrote: Some CDN providers such as Akamai and Google (often called Global Google Cache) are offering caches to ISPs. It is very convenient for small ISPs to alleviate bandwidth towards the provider, but also the CDN provider benefits by putting source of data closer to the user resulting in far better performance. Does anybody know of any other CDN providers that offer similar caches? Netflix does as well: https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware The last time I asked, they required 5GB/s of peak traffic to consider you. -- Dan White
Re: Global caches
On Feb 04, 2013, at 09:03 , Kyle Camilleri kyle.camill...@melitaplc.com wrote: Some CDN providers such as Akamai and Google (often called Global Google Cache) are offering caches to ISPs. It is very convenient for small ISPs to alleviate bandwidth towards the provider, but also the CDN provider benefits by putting source of data closer to the user resulting in far better performance. Does anybody know of any other CDN providers that offer similar caches? Don't know if you would call them a CDN, but https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Global caches
On 02/04/13 08:33 -0600, Dan White wrote: On 02/04/13 14:03 +, Kyle Camilleri wrote: Some CDN providers such as Akamai and Google (often called Global Google Cache) are offering caches to ISPs. It is very convenient for small ISPs to alleviate bandwidth towards the provider, but also the CDN provider benefits by putting source of data closer to the user resulting in far better performance. Does anybody know of any other CDN providers that offer similar caches? Netflix does as well: https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware The last time I asked, they required 5GB/s of peak traffic to consider you. Make that: 5 gigabits/s of peak traffic. -- Dan White
Re: Global caches
On Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:03:54PM +, Kyle Camilleri wrote: Does anybody know of any other CDN providers that offer similar caches? Most CDN providers also provide free access to super node caches at major datacentres and peering points - depending on where you are located, which datacentres you're in, and what your network looks like, you may find that it's cheaper for you to interconnect with the CDNs within a datacentre (particularly if you can do it via an IX), than the provide space and power for CDN nodes within your own network. Simon
Re: Global caches
While I would agree with that, having peering helps but certainly doesn't replace a localized CDN. Certainly better than nothing though. It also of course depends on the size of your network. If you are paying to carry that traffic (leased backhaul, etc.) from your peering point to your customers, you are still paying the same amount to deliver that content to your users (excluding any transit savings if moving from transit to get that CDN content). That is where an on-net CDN really saves you significantly as you can bury it deep into your network. I can't speak specifics here but I can tell you that the CDNs we have are filled at off-peak, so it really does become a win-win from a technical perspective (business case and politics are a completely different conversation though). -Jeff On Feb 4, 2013, at 6:50 AM, Simon Lockhart si...@slimey.org wrote: On Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:03:54PM +, Kyle Camilleri wrote: Does anybody know of any other CDN providers that offer similar caches? Most CDN providers also provide free access to super node caches at major datacentres and peering points - depending on where you are located, which datacentres you're in, and what your network looks like, you may find that it's cheaper for you to interconnect with the CDNs within a datacentre (particularly if you can do it via an IX), than the provide space and power for CDN nodes within your own network. Simon
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
- Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com Here is the architecture document: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf Nice get; that will make very interesting reading today. Thanks. -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com What we've seen is that the RBOC typically has a lot of crap copper in the ground, in a lot of cases air-core (pre gel-fill) that hasn't held up well. With the popularity of DSL, they ran out of good pairs to use. As they ran out of pairs, they eventually had to put in remote terminals to handle any new voice orders. They knew the future was fiber, at least to the node, so they had no incentive to build new copper plant, and little incentive to maintain the existing plant. I have been saying, out loud, in public places, for at least 15 years, that Verizon's *real* incentive in doing FiOS was to clean up after 3 decades of GTE doing cut-to-clear rather than fixing actual problems in their copper OSP... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Global caches
Does anybody know of any other CDN providers that offer similar caches? Yes. The Last Mile Cache. http://tlmc.fredan.se It's an completely open solution for everybody, both the ISP (Internet Service Provider) and CSP (Content Service Provider). -- //fredan
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
Scott Helms wrote: Here is the architecture document: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf The document, seemingly, does not address drop cable cost difference. It does not address L1 unbundling with WDM-PON, which requires fiber patch panel identical to that required for SS, either. As for power consumption at CO, all the transmitters do not have to have power consuming LDs but can just have modulators to modulate light from a shared light source, which has already happened with QSFP+: http://www.luxtera.com/faqs/ How do you generate light in silicon? Actually, we don't. Silicon is a bad material to try and build lasers in. Some silicon lasers have been demonstrated, but these are completely impractical. As it turns out there's no need to build a silicon laser: lasers are already very inexpensive (remember, there's already one in every PC - inside the CD/DVD player). The challenge has been finding an inexpensive way to attach the lasers to silicon. Solving this problem, and the related one of inexpensively attaching optical fibers to silicon, is a key piece of Luxtera's intellectual property. We think of a laser as being just like a DC power supply – only it provides a steady stream of photons rather than electrons. Masataka Ohta
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:53:50PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote: Sure, Verizon has been able to get their cost per home passed down to $700 To be fair, Verizon has chosen to build their FIOS network in many expensive to build locations, because that's where they believe there to be the most high profit customers. While perhaps not the most expensive builds possible, I would expect Verizon's FIOS experience to be on the upper end of the cost scale. Real-world FTTH complete overbuilds among RLECs (rural incumbent LECs) are typically between $2,000 and $5,000 per home served (that includes the ONT and customer turn-up). Slide 13 of http://www.natoa.org/events/NATOAPresentationCalix.pdf shows an average of $2,377 per home passed (100% take rate). You can see on Slide 14 how the lower households per square mile leads to substantially greater costs. Rural deployments present an entirely different problem of geography. I suspect the dark fiber model I advocate for is appropriate for 80% of the population from large cities to small towns; but for the 20% in truely rural areas it doesn't work and there is no cheap option as far as I can tell. And for Verizon's cost per home passed: Consider the total project cost of Verizon's FiOS, $23B, and then divide that not by the 17M homes passed (as I did), but with the actual subscribers (5,1M), This would result in a cost per subscriber of $23B/5.1M = $4,500. But Verizon knows that take rate will go up over time. Going from a 5.1M - 10M take rate would cut that number in half, going to the full 17M would cut it by 70%. Fiber to the home is a long term play, paybacks in 10-20 year timeframes. I'm sure wall-street doesn't want to hear that, but it's the truth. Remember that Google cherry-picked which city it would serve, so it was able to identify location that is likely less challenging and expensive to serve than the average. A lot of Google's Kansas City build will not be buried True, but I think it means we've bound the problem. It appears to take $1400-$4500 to deploy fiber to the home in urban and suburban areas, depending on all the fun local factors that effect costs. Again, if the ROI calculation is done on a realistic for infrastructure 10-20 year time line, that's actually very small money per home. If it's done on a 3 year, wall street turnaround it will never happen as it's not profitable. Which is a big part of why I want municipalities to finance it on 10-30 year government bonds, rather than try and have BigTelco and BigCableCo raise capital on wall street to do the job. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
2013.02.04 NANOG57 day 1 morning session notes posted
I jotted down some notes from this morning's session in case people are curious; they should be up visible at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2013.02.04-day1-morning-session.txt apache's kinda flakey on the box; if it stops responding, ping me and I'll bounce the server. ^_^; Thanks! Matt
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
- Original Message - From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org Remember that Google cherry-picked which city it would serve, so it was able to identify location that is likely less challenging and expensive to serve than the average. A lot of Google's Kansas City build will not be buried True, but I think it means we've bound the problem. It appears to take $1400-$4500 to deploy fiber to the home in urban and suburban areas, depending on all the fun local factors that effect costs. And look what appeared in my mailbox just now: http://broadcastengineering.com/ip-network/google-s-high-speed-fiber-installation-provides-economic-growth-kc Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: True, but I think it means we've bound the problem. It appears to take $1400-$4500 to deploy fiber to the home in urban and suburban areas, depending on all the fun local factors that effect costs. *sigh* I'd gladly pay $5000 NRC to get fiber to my house. I only wish it were that simple. :( Heck, if they wanted longer-term ROI, I'd pay $5000 NRC and $200 MRC for a fiber connection to my house, if only there were someone who could provide it. I suspect the real costs are much higher, and that's why there's nobody willing to do it for that cheap. Matt
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
- Original Message - From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: True, but I think it means we've bound the problem. It appears to take $1400-$4500 to deploy fiber to the home in urban and suburban areas, depending on all the fun local factors that effect costs. *sigh* I'd gladly pay $5000 NRC to get fiber to my house. I only wish it were that simple. :( Heck, if they wanted longer-term ROI, I'd pay $5000 NRC and $200 MRC for a fiber connection to my house, if only there were someone who could provide it. I suspect the real costs are much higher, and that's why there's nobody willing to do it for that cheap. No, Matt; in a sufficiently dense deployment, it appears you can actually get it done for that money, based on actual deployment results. If my project pans out, I'll give it to you for less than that. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: True, but I think it means we've bound the problem. It appears to take $1400-$4500 to deploy fiber to the home in urban and suburban areas, depending on all the fun local factors that effect costs. *sigh* I'd gladly pay $5000 NRC to get fiber to my house. I only wish it were that simple. :( Heck, if they wanted longer-term ROI, I'd pay $5000 NRC and $200 MRC for a fiber connection to my house, if only there were someone who could provide it. I suspect the real costs are much higher, and that's why there's nobody willing to do it for that cheap. No, Matt; in a sufficiently dense deployment, it appears you can actually get it done for that money, based on actual deployment results. If my project pans out, I'll give it to you for less than that. :-) I think the problem with your model is that the same one Google faced; you don't divide your cost based on the number of homes connected, you divide by the number of people forking out money for it. Building infrastructure to 10,000 homes doesn't work if 9,999 of them say no thanks, I'm happy with my current cable TV; that last person's gonna have a heck of a bill, or you're going to go bankrupt subsidizing them. Google Fiber's sign up, and if we get enough signups, then we'll build model seems to be the only sane way to ensure that you won't be left holding the bag if not enough subscribers opt in to the service to fund it. Now, if only we had a system for signing up to show our support for a build like that here in the bay area... ^_^; Matt
RE: Global caches
Hi Alex, We already have Google Cache although we don't peer with them directly. As said earlier, what I'm after is to cache content to provide better performance to our customers and alleviating some bandwidth towards provider. Taking an example of Global Google Cache, they provide and manage the servers themselves, absolutely no huge effort needed from the ISP. Making it very convenient. I know of Akamai and Netfix that does this in a fairly similar way, but would like to know if there are any other CDNs that do this. Regards, Kyle From: asko...@gmail.com [mailto:asko...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alex Brooks Sent: 04 February 2013 16:13 To: Kyle Camilleri Subject: Re: Global caches Hi, On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Kyle Camilleri kyle.camill...@melitaplc.commailto:kyle.camill...@melitaplc.com wrote: Dear Nanog Community, Some CDN providers such as Akamai and Google (often called Global Google Cache) are offering caches to ISPs. It is very convenient for small ISPs to alleviate bandwidth towards the provider, but also the CDN provider benefits by putting source of data closer to the user resulting in far better performance. Does anybody know of any other CDN providers that offer similar caches? I think I should give a note of caution first. Normally, CDNs will only consider you for caching if you already peer with them - in most cases the majority of any performance or cost improvements come from direct peering with a CDN first. Unfortunately, I can't find an entry for you on PeeringDB, but assuming that you are AS12709, you only seem to be peering with a few 'major' networks (Vodafone Malta (AS33874) WIND Italy (AS1267), Global Crossing (AS3549) and Level3 (AS3356)). If you don't (or can't) peer with, say, Google or Akamai, they are unlikely to invite you to join their caching systems. I'm guessing that because you are on an Island in the middle of the Mediterranean; with nobody wanting to peer on the Island, you are looking to cache as much as possible on the Island, as undersea cables are expensive. Is this correct? If you give the list a bit more information about what the problem you are trying to solve is, the people here are pretty good at coming up with solutions or putting you in contact with people who may be able to help. Best wishes, Alex
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Scott; I apologize. You could very well sincerely not realize you are wrong. Obviously, erroneous thinking is not the same as making things up. However, it is not good that bad information is out there and it should be corrected.First you refer to them as dry copper or dry pair which has no regulatory meaning. I don't know if using the wrong term is part of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them. The proper term is Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops. UNEs are the elements the ILECs are required to sell to CLECs. There are a variety of different types of UNE loops. The most accurate way to identify them is probably referring to an ILEC wholesale tariff filed on a state-by-state basis. The FCC defines Section 251 requirements, but individual state PUCs administer the tariffs for their locations. Second, going to any document by the NTCA, an advocacy organization, for information on this topic is a mistake for obvious bias reasons. The controlling documents are the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Telco Act), the FCC's Triennial Review Order[s](TRO), various ILEC tariffs and the individual InterConnection Agreements(ICA) between ILECs and CLECs. Under the Telco Act, UNE loops are a Section 251 requirement.The FCC has primary responsibility for administering Section 251 requirements and the FCC's rules for doing so are put forth in the TROs. The last TROs were released in 2004, so that would be the last time the rules changed as you put it. So there has not been a recent change in the rules resulting in residential CLEC demise. Third, it is true that an ILEC is not required to add capacity. However, it is hard for me to believe anyone would say with a straight face that any residential CLECs went out of business primarily because ILECs are not required to add copper. In a period where there is steady erosion of landlines resulting in a lot of unused copper loops, lack of copper loops is a small issue. Some residential CLECs went out of business because they had broken business models. Some residential CLECs became successful business CLECs as well, check out Earthlink (NASDAQ: ELNK). The controlling issues are more financial than regulatory. We have had the same regulatory regime for almost a decade. Any prudent DSL provider, ILEC or CLEC, should have plans for a transition to copper, but the copper network still has useful life in it for residential CLECs as well as other markets. Fletcher On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Fletcher, Your specific case may vary, but I am most certainly _not_ making stuff up. In many territories, especially outside of major metro areas, you cannot order dry pairs. This has been because of a combination of relaxed rules (if you really want I can dig up the NTCA reports on this) and because the rules never required the ILEC to add capacity once they were used up. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.netwrote: In this particular post, your making stuff up. There are still residential focused CLECs and ordering Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs) is not more difficult than in the past. The rules haven't changed. What is certainly true is that many CLECs have found that it is more lucrative to sell to businesses, but I don't think there is a correlation with residential getting more difficult. We used to be 75%/25% residential/business and are now 45%/55% business, but that reflects the *rapid* growth of the business market. regards, Fletcher On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Joe, I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are still generally available. I apologize for not making it clear that my comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see any residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote: On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason. Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are always wrong, no doubt including this one. Joe (putting the N back in NANOG) -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134 -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Fletcher
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On 13-02-04 14:57, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them. The proper term is Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops. The Bell Canada tariff on ADSL acess (5410) uses the following terminology: (GAS = wholesale DSL service operated by incumbent telco that provides PPPoE (there are some variations that provide ethernet connection) between end users and independent ISPs) ## (h) GAS Access will only be provisioned over Company provided primary exchange service, unbundled local loops used to provide CLEC primary exchange service, or dry loops. ## Dry Loop refers to a local loop that has no phone service attached to it (either telco or CLEC) but has the telco's wholesale DSL service. As I recall, it is tariffed separatly and differently from unbundled local loops. (If an ISP has its own DSLAM, it would need an unbundled local loop since it isn't buying the wholesale DSL service from Bell). In the USA, is access to the last mile copper mandated only for CLECs or can a company that is not a CLEC (aka: an ISP) also get access to the copper between CO and homes ?
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Jean-Francois; The only regulatory regime I am familiar with is the US and the original poster specifically specified the US regime. In the US, only CLECs have the right to order UNEs. Many ISPs became CLECs for that reason. In the states in which we operate, becoming a CLEC is a minimal burden. Being a CLEC has the added advantage of access to utility poles. regards, Fletcher On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-02-04 14:57, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them. The proper term is Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops. The Bell Canada tariff on ADSL acess (5410) uses the following terminology: (GAS = wholesale DSL service operated by incumbent telco that provides PPPoE (there are some variations that provide ethernet connection) between end users and independent ISPs) ## (h) GAS Access will only be provisioned over Company provided primary exchange service, unbundled local loops used to provide CLEC primary exchange service, or dry loops. ## Dry Loop refers to a local loop that has no phone service attached to it (either telco or CLEC) but has the telco's wholesale DSL service. As I recall, it is tariffed separatly and differently from unbundled local loops. (If an ISP has its own DSLAM, it would need an unbundled local loop since it isn't buying the wholesale DSL service from Bell). In the USA, is access to the last mile copper mandated only for CLECs or can a company that is not a CLEC (aka: an ISP) also get access to the copper between CO and homes ? -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Frank, 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. That, in a small system without a ton of technical experience, is a very difficult scenario mainly because the city will almost invariably under price their wholesale (layer 1, 2, or 3) rates and the ISPs that operate in these situations are also usually quite shallow in terms or technical skill set. Its not a matter of it being impossible, but its much more difficult to just break even in this scenario. I'd personally advocate taking the approach that San Diego took when they built their network (which IIRC they don't offer access to) several years back. The buried all their fiber plant but in trenches that allow easy (relatively) access and they lease space in those runs so if private operators want to pull their own fiber to some or all of the places the city reaches they can without having to worry about supporting unfamiliar technology on their plant. Our maintenance costs, in order of greatest to least, have been locating, cable moves (i.e. bridge project), monitoring digs, and damage to fiber (rodents and vehicles that hit peds). We have had many more ONT issues than fiber issues, and most fiber issues can be resolved by cleaning both sides of the fiber (customer and head end). And we've had to replace the 50' patch cable between the OLTG and optical splitter a two of three times. While finger-pointing is always a risk when multiple players are involved in delivering any service, I don't perceive that as being as much of a problem as you think it will be. With the right fiber testing gear, any suspected problems can pretty quickly be identified. Frank Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Frank, One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. This would be a different kind of situation than I've seen attempted in the past but in general the content guys get very picky about how video delivery is done. I'd certainly not claim to be authoritative on this, but I've never seen it done and I have seen the content guys strike down shared head end systems in almost all cases. Also, apologies for the rash of emails since this is the first time I've been able to get back to this thread. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote: Brandon: My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE design, as an RF-overlay on a GPON network is likely more profitable than an IP TV service on top of GPON or ActiveE. And Jay wants to attract multiple providers, so he wants a fiber design that's as attractive to as many parties as reasonably possible. Frank -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:56 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG; Jay Ashworth Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote: Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the other triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it? -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567 : capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure ATT knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
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. 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.
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, I'm trimming this for my own sanity if I snip out something important please let me know. So long as you recognize that it's on a pair-by-pair basis end-to-end and not expecting any mixing/sharing/etc. by the L1 infrastructure provider, yes. OK good, now we're speaking on the same topic :) Is it more expensive to home-run every home than to put splitters in the neighborhood? Yes. Is it enough more expensive that the tradeoffs cannot be overcome? I remain unconvinced. This completely depends on the area and the goals of the network. In most cases for muni networks back hauling everything is more expensive. I agree it's more expensive. The question is whether it's enough more expensive to make it infeasible. You still haven't come anywhere near addressing that question. I've said repeatedly that this a network by network analysis. I've never said its infeasible, but that it is more expensive both initially and long term in MOST installs. That by itself is generally enough to invalidate the design since in almost all cases there's no benefit to home running all the connections. It doesn't make the connection faster nor do ISPs (as a group) care about a layer 1 versus layer 2 hand off. That's where we disagree. The benefit is that: 1. It doesn't lock the entire area into a single current technology. Neither does a ring architecture. 2. It allows for individual subscribers (probably mostly businesses, but I have had a few occasions where this would have been useful as an individual) to get dark XC to other locations. Neither does a ring architecture, you do have fewer long runs, but in any build you're going to end up with spare pairs to use for this and in my experience the number of businesses who want this in given area are very small. I can't think of a network where this is more than 1% of the business connections. 3. Subscribers who want individualized services from different vendors have a choice. Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is moot as well. 4. Providers have to compete on a leveled playing field and there is thus incentive to innovate even if the innovation moves away from PON. Again, this is a completely moot point. There is nothing in a ring or hub spoke architecture that makes open access more difficult EXCEPT if you want to share lots of L1 connections. I'm not sure why you think it would be hard to delineate the responsibilities… You've got a fiber path maintained by the municipality with active equipment maintained by the ISP at each end. If the light coming out of the equipment at one end doesn't come out of the fiber at the other end, you have a problem in the municipality's domain. If the light makes it through in tact, you have a problem in the ISP's domain. There is equipment available that can test that fairly easily. OK, this one made my wife get scared I laughed so hard. You clearly have never tried to do this or had to work with different operators in the same physical network. Please, go talk to someone whose worked in the field of a FTTx network and describe this scenario to them. Its clear you don't want to hear it from me via email so please go do some research. I've talked to a few people doing exactly that. Yes, you need different test sets depending on which L2 gear is involved, but, in virtually ever case, there is a piece of test gear that can be used to test a loop independent of the configuration of the L2 gear in question. Yes, there is a meter for all the different kinds of technologies that you might want to support. For example a DOCSIS 3.0 DSAM from JDSU will run you around $8000.00 A PON meter with long range lasers (more than 10 miles) from JDSU or Trilithic will cost you nearly $10,000. Exactly how many of those kinds of meters do you want to have to buy? How many of your staff are you going to train on them (they do require training and knowledge to use)? For my proposed methods of build-out, no need for the long range lasers. As I said, everything should be within 8km of the MMR. As I suggested, the simpler approach is to require the complaining L2 provider to cooperate in the diagnostic process and provide access to the applicable meters if necessary. The standard offered absent assistance from the L2 provider is OTDR success. Medium range lasers (anything that's running on single mode fiber) versus long range don't drive the cost. OTDR is not and cannot test for any phase modulated system and that includes every form of PON, Active Ethernet, and RFoG. You _might_ be able to use one to test RS-232 over fiber depending on the vendor. This is where you're really not getting it. As the owner of the physical medium you WILL be the blame of every problem until you prove differently. Every end user install that goes poorly, every time there is a connection drop, and every time some end user of
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Is it more expensive to home-run every home than to put splitters in the neighborhood? Yes. Is it enough more expensive that the tradeoffs cannot be overcome? I remain unconvinced. This completely depends on the area and the goals of the network. In most cases for muni networks back hauling everything is more expensive. Bot of you are wrong. There is no reason fiber is more expensive than copper, which means SS is cheap, as cheap as copper. Copper isn't cheap, its just there already. What is SS? As most of the cost is cable laying, which is little sensitive to the number of twisted pairs or fibers in the cable, PON, with splitters and lengthy drop cables (if you want a fiber shared by many subscribers, you need a lengthy drop cables from a splitter), can not be less expensive than SS. No, most of the cost isn't in running the cabling. Today most of the cost is in lighting the fiber, though that varies on where you're running the cabling and what gear you're using to light it. PON, which is expensive, is preferred by some carriers merely because it makes competition impossible. PON is preferred by carriers because it works in their existing equipment and often with their existing fiber plant. Planning for a carrier network is very different (different requirements) than for a greenfield muni system. Masataka Ohta -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Here is the architecture document: http://static.**googleusercontent.com/**external_content/untrusted_** dlcp/research.google.com/en/**us/pubs/archive/36936.pdfhttp://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf The document, seemingly, does not address drop cable cost difference. It does not address L1 unbundling with WDM-PON, which requires fiber patch panel identical to that required for SS, either. They're not doing WDM-PON or any flavor of PON at all. Its entirely an Active Ethernet deployment. As for power consumption at CO, all the transmitters do not have to have power consuming LDs but can just have modulators to modulate light from a shared light source, which has already happened with QSFP+: http://www.luxtera.com/faqs/ How do you generate light in silicon? Actually, we don't. Silicon is a bad material to try and build lasers in. Some silicon lasers have been demonstrated, but these are completely impractical. As it turns out there's no need to build a silicon laser: lasers are already very inexpensive (remember, there's already one in every PC - inside the CD/DVD player). The challenge has been finding an inexpensive way to attach the lasers to silicon. Solving this problem, and the related one of inexpensively attaching optical fibers to silicon, is a key piece of Luxtera's intellectual property. We think of a laser as being just like a DC power supply – only it provides a steady stream of photons rather than electrons. Masataka, are your trying to participate in the conversation or sell gear? The laser used in your DVD player is NOT suitable for a broadband deployment. Masataka Ohta -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. You do really need to read the thread before you post. I already pointed out that there are several companies that will handle or aggregate programming for you. See here: http://www.itvdictionary.com/tv_content_aggregators.html And this company here: http://www.telechannel.tv/overview.php I'm no expert in this space, but as I've pointed out multiple times, there are probably 50-100 small service providers in the US that provide video programming to their communities. I guarantee you at least most of them don't negotiate with all of the content providers themselves, on an individual basis. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
Rural deployments present an entirely different problem of geography. I suspect the dark fiber model I advocate for is appropriate for 80% of the population from large cities to small towns; but for the 20% in truely rural areas it doesn't work and there is no cheap option as far as I can tell. Why do you want a muni to put in fiber but not light it? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply put in fiber runs and let company's lease space? Trenches don't really degrade over time and there is a lot less of a requirement for cooperative troubleshooting and far less blame game. Which is a big part of why I want municipalities to finance it on 10-30 year government bonds, rather than try and have BigTelco and BigCableCo raise capital on wall street to do the job. I certainly sympathize with wanting independent connections but most cities have their own budget concerns and doing a bond on a fiber network they can't or don't light is a harder pay back on one that they do light. I'd suggest either layer 2 sharing (ethernet with per sub VLANs) or trench sharing as above. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On 13-02-04 16:04, Scott Helms wrote: Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is moot as well. This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada leaves indepdendant ISPs having to explain to their customers that they can't fix certain problems and that they must call the telco/cableco to get it fixed. (in the case of a certain cable company, they can't even call them, it has to be done by email with response of at least 48 hours). So splitting responsabilities can be an annoyance if it becomes very visible to the end users. Another aspect: customers espect to be able to switch seamlessly from one ISP to the next. But ISP-2 can't take over from ISP-1 until ISP-1 has relinquised control over the line to the end user. In a layer 1 scenario, it means ISP-1 has to physically go and deinstall their CPE and disconnect strand from their OLT, and then ISP-2 can do the reverse and reconnect evrything to provide services. What happens when ISP-1 isn't interested in a quick disconnect and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end use without service ? In a layer2 service, it is a matter of reconfiguring the OLT to pass ethernet packets to a different VLAN to a different ISP. No physical changes required and it can be almost tranparent to the end user who just has to make a new DHCP request and be provisioned by ISP-2.
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.net wrote: Scott; I apologize. You could very well sincerely not realize you are wrong. Obviously, erroneous thinking is not the same as making things up. Thanks, I think ;) I looked back and what I had written and I will say that I could have been expressed it along these lines; It would be difficult in most RBOC territories today today offer residential scale broadband access because of the lack of good UNE loops. This is further complicated by the fact that in many territories local number are too expensive for the relatively low density of a given area and that retards the uptake of residential CLEC voice services. However, it is not good that bad information is out there and it should be corrected.First you refer to them as dry copper or dry pair which has no regulatory meaning. I don't know if using the wrong term is part of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them. The proper term is Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops. UNEs are the elements the ILECs are required to sell to CLECs. There are a variety of different types of UNE loops. The most accurate way to identify them is probably referring to an ILEC wholesale tariff filed on a state-by-state basis. The FCC defines Section 251 requirements, but individual state PUCs administer the tariffs for their locations. Agreed, dry pair is trade speak and not sufficiently accurate for a discussion on telco regulations. UNE is the correct term and we are both talking about the same item. Second, going to any document by the NTCA, an advocacy organization, for information on this topic is a mistake for obvious bias reasons. True, the NTCA is an advocacy group but they're also a communication group that tracks regulatory changes for the industry. I'll try and pull up the relevant documentation. The controlling documents are the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Telco Act), the FCC's Triennial Review Order[s](TRO), various ILEC tariffs and the individual InterConnection Agreements(ICA) between ILECs and CLECs. Under the Telco Act, UNE loops are a Section 251 requirement.The FCC has primary responsibility for administering Section 251 requirements and the FCC's rules for doing so are put forth in the TROs. The last TROs were released in 2004, so that would be the last time the rules changed as you put it. So there has not been a recent change in the rules resulting in residential CLEC demise. I don't know why I gave you any reason to think I was referring to anything but the Supreme Court refusing to even hear the 2004 case as the primary regulatory shift for CLECs. That was the last year we had a formal change in Federal regulation, though its certainly not the end of cases and the FCC has a docket of CLEC/ILEC cases pretty much every week and those have been consistently in favor of the ILEC side of things. There are also state level actions and inactions that have made the climate harsher for CLECs. Third, it is true that an ILEC is not required to add capacity. However, it is hard for me to believe anyone would say with a straight face that any residential CLECs went out of business primarily because ILECs are not required to add copper. In a period where there is steady erosion of landlines resulting in a lot of unused copper loops, lack of copper loops is a small issue. Some residential CLECs went out of business because they had broken business models. Some residential CLECs became successful business CLECs as well, check out Earthlink (NASDAQ: ELNK). The controlling issues are more financial than regulatory. We have had the same regulatory regime for almost a decade. Earthlink is in the residential business because that's where they came from. They've been busy buying and building commercial services ever since the Mindspring merger. If it weren't for the fact that ITC-Deltacom ended up with a poor reputation that's what their name would likely be today. Any prudent DSL provider, ILEC or CLEC, should have plans for a transition to copper, but the copper network still has useful life in it for residential CLECs as well as other markets. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Should this have been a transition from copper? Fletcher On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Fletcher, Your specific case may vary, but I am most certainly _not_ making stuff up. In many territories, especially outside of major metro areas, you cannot order dry pairs. This has been because of a combination of relaxed rules (if you really want I can dig up the NTCA reports on this) and because the rules never required the ILEC to add capacity once they were used up. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.netwrote: In this particular post, your making stuff up. There are still residential focused CLECs
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
- Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is moot as well. This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada leaves indepdendant ISPs having to explain to their customers that they can't fix certain problems and that they must call the telco/cableco to get it fixed. (in the case of a certain cable company, they can't even call them, it has to be done by email with response of at least 48 hours). Yes, and Scott is *horribly* pessimistic (in my opinion) about how difficult it will be to have ISP clients who a) understand this and b) don't tolerate it. I will have more to say on this below. Another aspect: customers espect to be able to switch seamlessly from one ISP to the next. But ISP-2 can't take over from ISP-1 until ISP-1 has relinquised control over the line to the end user. In a layer 1 scenario, it means ISP-1 has to physically go and deinstall their CPE and disconnect strand from their OLT, and then ISP-2 can do the reverse and reconnect evrything to provide services. What happens when ISP-1 isn't interested in a quick disconnect and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end use without service ? What happens is that they tell us, the hometown fiber network operator that they're switching to ISP-2, who has already put in their own Take order to us, and we splash cut the pair, with no responsibility to ISP-1 whose contract warns them that *our residents* take priority, and if they screw up, they'll lose by it. Customer happy, and foot-dragging ISP -- who should -- takes the brunt. They do it too much, they pay. In a layer2 service, it is a matter of reconfiguring the OLT to pass ethernet packets to a different VLAN to a different ISP. No physical changes required and it can be almost tranparent to the end user who just has to make a new DHCP request and be provisioned by ISP-2. Yes, and that's why my *primary* goal will be to provide L2 service with city-owned ONTs. Making sure the plant is L1 *compliant* is my secondary goal, so I don't lock out PtP or L1 clients. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Brandon, On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. You do really need to read the thread before you post. There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for. I already pointed out that there are several companies that will handle or aggregate programming for you. See here: http://www.itvdictionary.com/**tv_content_aggregators.htmlhttp://www.itvdictionary.com/tv_content_aggregators.html And this company here: http://www.telechannel.tv/**overview.phphttp://www.telechannel.tv/overview.php I'm no expert in this space, but as I've pointed out multiple times, there are probably 50-100 small service providers in the US that provide video programming to their communities. I guarantee you at least most of them don't negotiate with all of the content providers themselves, on an individual basis. There are way more than 100. NCTC has more than 1000 members themselves http://www.nctconline.org/ -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Exactly! On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-02-04 16:04, Scott Helms wrote: Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is moot as well. This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada leaves indepdendant ISPs having to explain to their customers that they can't fix certain problems and that they must call the telco/cableco to get it fixed. (in the case of a certain cable company, they can't even call them, it has to be done by email with response of at least 48 hours). So splitting responsabilities can be an annoyance if it becomes very visible to the end users. Another aspect: customers espect to be able to switch seamlessly from one ISP to the next. But ISP-2 can't take over from ISP-1 until ISP-1 has relinquised control over the line to the end user. In a layer 1 scenario, it means ISP-1 has to physically go and deinstall their CPE and disconnect strand from their OLT, and then ISP-2 can do the reverse and reconnect evrything to provide services. What happens when ISP-1 isn't interested in a quick disconnect and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end use without service ? In a layer2 service, it is a matter of reconfiguring the OLT to pass ethernet packets to a different VLAN to a different ISP. No physical changes required and it can be almost tranparent to the end user who just has to make a new DHCP request and be provisioned by ISP-2. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for. How is that different from what the aggregators that I've already pointed out are doing? Why does anyone need to resell anything, anyway, what we are talking about are service providers connected to this muni fiber network being able to deliver triple play to their subs. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
How is that different from what the aggregators that I've already pointed out are doing? Why does anyone need to resell anything, anyway, what we are talking about are service providers connected to this muni fiber network being able to deliver triple play to their subs. Its not, that was kind of the point. What you're pointing out is NOT what I was saying is problematic. I work with companies that get there content from the coop or another aggregator every single day. This is fine and common as dirt: Video_content(from an aggregato or direct)---Muni_operator--End_user What I think Jay and some others were suggesting is: Video_content---Muni_operator---End_user AND/OR ---L1/L2 partner---End_user That last bit where the content is being delivered to the customer of another operator that doesn't have a contract with either the content owner or an aggregator isn't (IMO) possible today. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for. I proposed it, and I immediately scratched the idea, when I found out that my notional ISP clients could themselves get it from such vendors to offer at retail. So we can stop trying to make that *particular* type of glue now. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada leaves indepdendant ISPs having to explain to their customers that they can't fix certain problems and that they must call the telco/cableco to get it fixed. (in the case of a certain cable company, they can't even call them, it has to be done by email with response of at least 48 hours). So splitting responsabilities can be an annoyance if it becomes very visible to the end users. No different from competing ISPs using DSL or PON. Another aspect: customers espect to be able to switch seamlessly from one ISP to the next. But ISP-2 can't take over from ISP-1 until ISP-1 has relinquised control over the line to the end user. No different from competing ISPs using DSL or PON. In a layer 1 scenario, it means ISP-1 has to physically go and deinstall their CPE and disconnect strand from their OLT, and then ISP-2 can do the reverse and reconnect evrything to provide services. No. Just say optical MDF. What happens when ISP-1 isn't interested in a quick disconnect and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end use without service ? You assume ISP-1 quickly stop servicing the end user, don't you? In a layer2 service, it is a matter of reconfiguring the OLT to pass ethernet packets to a different VLAN to a different ISP. No physical What happens when OLT operator isn't interested in a quick reconfiguration, ISP-1 quickly stop servicing the end user and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end user without service? Masataka Ohta
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
- Original Message - From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: So splitting responsabilities can be an annoyance if it becomes very visible to the end users. No different from competing ISPs using DSL or PON. Sure it is: competing ISPs in a traditional situation would be using each their own PHY. Another aspect: customers espect to be able to switch seamlessly from one ISP to the next. But ISP-2 can't take over from ISP-1 until ISP-1 has relinquised control over the line to the end user. No different from competing ISPs using DSL or PON. Sure it is: there it's *much worse*. In a layer 1 scenario, it means ISP-1 has to physically go and deinstall their CPE and disconnect strand from their OLT, and then ISP-2 can do the reverse and reconnect evrything to provide services. No. Just say optical MDF. Doesn't preclude the need to swap different models of ONTs. What happens when ISP-1 isn't interested in a quick disconnect and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end use without service ? You assume ISP-1 quickly stop servicing the end user, don't you? I assume everyone will behave, because they're all *the customers of me, the municipality*, and they have a vested interest in being good actors. In a layer2 service, it is a matter of reconfiguring the OLT to pass ethernet packets to a different VLAN to a different ISP. No physical What happens when OLT operator isn't interested in a quick reconfiguration, ISP-1 quickly stop servicing the end user and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end user without service? Again, *the city* is the OLT operator, in a L2 scenario, and I will flip the customer over almost immediately. Yes, I know subs will try to game things occasionally; we'll likely be able to cope with that. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Jay Ashworth wrote: In a layer 1 scenario, it means ISP-1 has to physically go and deinstall their CPE and disconnect strand from their OLT, and then ISP-2 can do the reverse and reconnect evrything to provide services. No. Just say optical MDF. Doesn't preclude the need to swap different models of ONTs. No different from competing ISPs using DSL or PON. What happens when ISP-1 isn't interested in a quick disconnect and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end use without service ? You assume ISP-1 quickly stop servicing the end user, don't you? I assume everyone will behave, because they're all *the customers of me, the municipality*, and they have a vested interest in being good actors. So, if the city is the MDF operator, L1 configuration should change almost immediately. Again, *the city* is the OLT operator, in a L2 scenario, and I will flip the customer over almost immediately. See above. Masataka Ohta
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Scott Helms wrote: Bot of you are wrong. There is no reason fiber is more expensive than copper, which means SS is cheap, as cheap as copper. Copper isn't cheap, its just there already. Unbundled copper costs about $10/M or so, which means SS fiber can't be more expensive. What is SS? Single star. No, most of the cost isn't in running the cabling. Today most of the cost is in lighting the fiber, though that varies on where you're running the cabling and what gear you're using to light it. On page 11 of google slide, http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf it is stated that Trenching consists of 70-80% of the total cost for infrastructure build. PON is preferred by carriers because it works in their existing equipment Their existing equipment was SS copper and MDF. Planning for a carrier network is very different (different requirements) than for a greenfield muni system. Surely, transition from copper to fiber is not trivial, but it helps a lot that fiber cables are thinner than copper cables. Masataka Ohta
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Bot of you are wrong. There is no reason fiber is more expensive than copper, which means SS is cheap, as cheap as copper. Copper isn't cheap, its just there already. Unbundled copper costs about $10/M or so, which means SS fiber can't be more expensive. Why is that? What is SS? Single star. I'm not sure what you're trying to describe here, the cost of fiber from an ongoing standpoint isn't strongly correlated to the architecture. Upgrades to the fiber and adding service to new areas is a different animal. No, most of the cost isn't in running the cabling. Today most of the cost is in lighting the fiber, though that varies on where you're running the cabling and what gear you're using to light it. On page 11 of google slide, http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf it is stated that Trenching consists of 70-80% of the total cost for infrastructure build. Trenching != cabling and the total initial CAPEX is less than 25% of the total cost over 10 years. PON is preferred by carriers because it works in their existing equipment Their existing equipment was SS copper and MDF. No, their existing equipment was Adtran, Calix, Occam, Alcatel, Zhone, AFC, and a host of others but not SS copper or MDF. By MDF I assume your'e talking about main distribution frame which has nothing to do with the discussion here. Planning for a carrier network is very different (different requirements) than for a greenfield muni system. Surely, transition from copper to fiber is not trivial, but it helps a lot that fiber cables are thinner than copper cables. Really, so you think that the thickness of the cable has an impact on how much it should cost? So, tell you what I'll exchange some nice thick 10 gauge copper wire for 4 gauge platinum, since its much thinner that ought to be a good trade for you, right? ;) Masataka Ohta -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Really, so you think that the thickness of the cable has an impact on how much it should cost? So, tell you what I'll exchange some nice thick 10 gauge copper wire for correction--- 14 gauge platinum, since its much thinner that ought to be a good trade for you, right? ;) -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
Scott Helms wrote: The document, seemingly, does not address drop cable cost difference. It does not address L1 unbundling with WDM-PON, which requires fiber patch panel identical to that required for SS, either. They're not doing WDM-PON or any flavor of PON at all. Its entirely an Active Ethernet deployment. My point is that their comparison between SS and PON is insufficient. As for power consumption at CO, all the transmitters do not have to have power consuming LDs but can just have modulators to modulate light from a shared light source, which has already happened with QSFP+: Masataka, are your trying to participate in the conversation or sell gear? My point is that form factor reduction by silicon photonics excludes LDs. The laser used in your DVD player is NOT suitable for a broadband deployment. Do you understand that QSFP+ is for 10G Ethernet? One or two (or three, maybe) shared light source in CO can have much better quality, which can be distributed to all the transmitters using splitters and EDFA, which does not consume a lot of power. Masataka Ohta
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Feb 4, 2013, at 13:46 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Brandon, On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. You do really need to read the thread before you post. There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for. Actually, as I understood what was proposed, you would bring Cable Coop and/or other such vendors into the colo space adjacent to the MMR and let them sell directly to the other service providers and/or customers. Owen
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Scott Helms wrote: Unbundled copper costs about $10/M or so, which means SS fiber can't be more expensive. I'm not sure what you're trying to describe here, the cost of fiber from an ongoing standpoint isn't strongly correlated to the architecture. Upgrades to the fiber and adding service to new areas is a different animal. They are not soo different, as long as you try to recover initial cost not so quickly, which is why copper costs about $10/M or so. it is stated that Trenching consists of 70-80% of the total cost for infrastructure build. Trenching != cabling and the total initial CAPEX is less than 25% of the total cost over 10 years. My statement of cable laying includes trenching, sorry if it is not clear. And, you can see the slide contain POP Active Equipment Cost, which you thought most of the cost is in lighting the fiber, is already included. No, their existing equipment was Adtran, Calix, Occam, Alcatel, Zhone, AFC, and a host of others but not SS copper or MDF. By MDF I assume your'e talking about main distribution frame which has nothing to do with the discussion here. If you throw away optical MDF, there is no point to discuss L1 unbundling. Surely, transition from copper to fiber is not trivial, but it helps a lot that fiber cables are thinner than copper cables. Really, so you think that the thickness of the cable has an impact on how much it should cost? So, tell you what I'll exchange some nice thick 10 gauge copper wire for 4 gauge platinum, since its much thinner that ought to be a good trade for you, right? ;) My point is that a conduit capable of storing additional 10 guage copper can, instead, store 10 guage fiber. Or, if you assume a conduit without any extra space, upgrading to PON is also impossible. Masataka Ohta
2013.02.04 NANOG57 day 1 afternoon notes
Notes from the afternoon session, including the community meeting, but minus most of the BCOP presentation have been posted: http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2013.02.04-NANOG57-day1-afternoon-session.txt it looks like apache2 serves up about 100 connections, then wedges. :( No time to troubleshoot it, but i'll try to check back once an hour and kick it in the head. Thank you Dave, our hero of the day for making sure the WCIT talk contents did *not* get sealed behind closed doors! round two begins tomorrow morning, bright and early. ^_^ Matt
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Feb 4, 2013, at 13:04 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Owen, I'm trimming this for my own sanity if I snip out something important please let me know. So long as you recognize that it's on a pair-by-pair basis end-to-end and not expecting any mixing/sharing/etc. by the L1 infrastructure provider, yes. OK good, now we're speaking on the same topic :) Is it more expensive to home-run every home than to put splitters in the neighborhood? Yes. Is it enough more expensive that the tradeoffs cannot be overcome? I remain unconvinced. This completely depends on the area and the goals of the network. In most cases for muni networks back hauling everything is more expensive. I agree it's more expensive. The question is whether it's enough more expensive to make it infeasible. You still haven't come anywhere near addressing that question. I've said repeatedly that this a network by network analysis. I've never said its infeasible, but that it is more expensive both initially and long term in MOST installs. That by itself is generally enough to invalidate the design since in almost all cases there's no benefit to home running all the connections. It doesn't make the connection faster nor do ISPs (as a group) care about a layer 1 versus layer 2 hand off. That's where we disagree. The benefit is that: 1. It doesn't lock the entire area into a single current technology. Neither does a ring architecture. Yes it does... It locks you into whatever is supported on the ring. 2. It allows for individual subscribers (probably mostly businesses, but I have had a few occasions where this would have been useful as an individual) to get dark XC to other locations. Neither does a ring architecture, you do have fewer long runs, but in any build you're going to end up with spare pairs to use for this and in my experience the number of businesses who want this in given area are very small. I can't think of a network where this is more than 1% of the business connections. That's because today, it's expensive and the price is usually way way way above cost-recovery (or, it's cost recovery of the build cost / n where n is a very small number of fibers). Lower the price per instance and you very likely find new demands. 3. Subscribers who want individualized services from different vendors have a choice. Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is moot as well. But the vendors do and it makes a huge difference to the barrier to entry price for competing vendors offering different services. (I'm talking about more than just IP at this point). 4. Providers have to compete on a leveled playing field and there is thus incentive to innovate even if the innovation moves away from PON. Again, this is a completely moot point. There is nothing in a ring or hub spoke architecture that makes open access more difficult EXCEPT if you want to share lots of L1 connections. What I'm proposing is a hub and spoke architecture. It's just a much larger hub with much longer spokes. I'm not sure why you think it would be hard to delineate the responsibilities… You've got a fiber path maintained by the municipality with active equipment maintained by the ISP at each end. If the light coming out of the equipment at one end doesn't come out of the fiber at the other end, you have a problem in the municipality's domain. If the light makes it through in tact, you have a problem in the ISP's domain. There is equipment available that can test that fairly easily. OK, this one made my wife get scared I laughed so hard. You clearly have never tried to do this or had to work with different operators in the same physical network. Please, go talk to someone whose worked in the field of a FTTx network and describe this scenario to them. Its clear you don't want to hear it from me via email so please go do some research. I've talked to a few people doing exactly that. Yes, you need different test sets depending on which L2 gear is involved, but, in virtually ever case, there is a piece of test gear that can be used to test a loop independent of the configuration of the L2 gear in question. Yes, there is a meter for all the different kinds of technologies that you might want to support. For example a DOCSIS 3.0 DSAM from JDSU will run you around $8000.00 A PON meter with long range lasers (more than 10 miles) from JDSU or Trilithic will cost you nearly $10,000. Exactly how many of those kinds of meters do you want to have to buy? How many of your staff are you going to train on them (they do require training and knowledge to use)? For my proposed methods of build-out, no need for the long range lasers. As I said, everything should be within 8km of the
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Feb 4, 2013, at 13:17 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-02-04 16:04, Scott Helms wrote: Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is moot as well. This is where one has to be carefull. The wholesale scenario in Canada leaves indepdendant ISPs having to explain to their customers that they can't fix certain problems and that they must call the telco/cableco to get it fixed. (in the case of a certain cable company, they can't even call them, it has to be done by email with response of at least 48 hours). So splitting responsabilities can be an annoyance if it becomes very visible to the end users. Another aspect: customers espect to be able to switch seamlessly from one ISP to the next. But ISP-2 can't take over from ISP-1 until ISP-1 has relinquised control over the line to the end user. In a layer 1 scenario, it means ISP-1 has to physically go and deinstall their CPE and disconnect strand from their OLT, and then ISP-2 can do the reverse and reconnect evrything to provide services. Only if you insist on re-using the same strand. More likely in the proposed scenario, the customer is only using 1 of the 3 pairs of fiber to their prem. In such a case, just light the second strand with ISP-2 and ISP-1 can do their de-install at their leisure (or not). What happens when ISP-1 isn't interested in a quick disconnect and ISP-2 has to wait days/weeks with end use without service ? Nope. See above. In a layer2 service, it is a matter of reconfiguring the OLT to pass ethernet packets to a different VLAN to a different ISP. No physical changes required and it can be almost tranparent to the end user who just has to make a new DHCP request and be provisioned by ISP-2. I agree this can be an advantage in some scenarios. That's one of the reasons I think allowing the muni to provide optional L2 aggregation services is worth while. Owen
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Unbundled copper costs about $10/M or so, which means SS fiber can't be more expensive. I'm not sure what you're trying to describe here, the cost of fiber from an ongoing standpoint isn't strongly correlated to the architecture. Upgrades to the fiber and adding service to new areas is a different animal. They are not soo different, as long as you try to recover initial cost not so quickly, which is why copper costs about $10/M or so. I know several dozen companies that do this kind of construction and they don't agree. it is stated that Trenching consists of 70-80% of the total cost for infrastructure build. Trenching != cabling and the total initial CAPEX is less than 25% of the total cost over 10 years. My statement of cable laying includes trenching, sorry if it is not clear. And, you can see the slide contain POP Active Equipment Cost, which you thought most of the cost is in lighting the fiber, is already included. Google is making their own access gear. Their economy is very very different from all of us here. No, their existing equipment was Adtran, Calix, Occam, Alcatel, Zhone, AFC, and a host of others but not SS copper or MDF. By MDF I assume your'e talking about main distribution frame which has nothing to do with the discussion here. If you throw away optical MDF, there is no point to discuss L1 unbundling. OK, historically the main distribution frame was where all of the copper pairs came into a central office note that a phone company often had several central offices to cover their territory in the time before there were remotes (Digital Loop Carriers). Today even when you home run all of your fiber connections you bring it to a central patch panel(s) which really doesn't look like a main distribution frame. From a logical standpoint that central set of patch panels is similar to a MDF but I personally don't think about them the same way because a MDF is constructed very differently. (Google wire wraping telco tool) Surely, transition from copper to fiber is not trivial, but it helps a lot that fiber cables are thinner than copper cables. Really, so you think that the thickness of the cable has an impact on how much it should cost? So, tell you what I'll exchange some nice thick 10 gauge copper wire for 4 gauge platinum, since its much thinner that ought to be a good trade for you, right? ;) My point is that a conduit capable of storing additional 10 guage copper can, instead, store 10 guage fiber. Or, if you assume a conduit without any extra space, upgrading to PON is also impossible. OK, twisted pair cabling isn't run in conduit. Its not pulled the way that fiber is. Twisted pair plant is in a wiring bundle with a certain number of pairs in that bundle. You cannot remove the twisted pair in whole or part and then run fiber through that cabling. You can of course use the same trench IF you have buried cable and there is room. If you have aerial plant (common in rural telco deployments, less common in muni networks) you can also string your fiber on the same poles that you either own or have attachment rights to but the thickness of the cable doesn't change your costs any. Masataka Ohta -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
That's where we disagree. The benefit is that: 1. It doesn't lock the entire area into a single current technology. Neither does a ring architecture. Yes it does... It locks you into whatever is supported on the ring. I don't know how I can explain this more plainly, I can (more accurately have) taken a fiber build that was created as a ring spoke SONET system and with the same fiber plant overlaid that with GigE and ATM (further back in time) to backhaul for PON, DSL, VOIP, and direct Active Ethernet. There is nothing about a hub spoke architecture is this harmful or even suboptimal for doing Gig-E directly to end users today. This wasn't always true because we've only had 40G and 100G Ethernet for carrier networks for a few years. In the past we were limited by how big of an etherchannel network we could use for the ring. I'd also point out that the ring architecture is optimal for redundancy since you have fewer fiber bundles to get cut in the field and any cut to your ring gets routed around the ring by ERPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERPS) in less than 50 milliseconds. 2. It allows for individual subscribers (probably mostly businesses, but I have had a few occasions where this would have been useful as an individual) to get dark XC to other locations. Neither does a ring architecture, you do have fewer long runs, but in any build you're going to end up with spare pairs to use for this and in my experience the number of businesses who want this in given area are very small. I can't think of a network where this is more than 1% of the business connections. That's because today, it's expensive and the price is usually way way way above cost-recovery (or, it's cost recovery of the build cost / n where n is a very small number of fibers). Lower the price per instance and you very likely find new demands. The vast majority of business don't WANT that kind of connectivity. How many MPLS connections get purchased by SMBs? That's the same kind of connectivity at layer 3 and that's a market that is almost entirely used by large corportations. 3. Subscribers who want individualized services from different vendors have a choice. Subscribers don't care if the hand off is at layer 1 or layer 2 so this is moot as well. But the vendors do and it makes a huge difference to the barrier to entry price for competing vendors offering different services. (I'm talking about more than just IP at this point). What vendors? ISPs don't. 4. Providers have to compete on a leveled playing field and there is thus incentive to innovate even if the innovation moves away from PON. Again, this is a completely moot point. There is nothing in a ring or hub spoke architecture that makes open access more difficult EXCEPT if you want to share lots of L1 connections. What I'm proposing is a hub and spoke architecture. It's just a much larger hub with much longer spokes. That's called home running, but as I've said that's ok in some scenarios, its just that in most cases there is no benefit. I'm not sure why you think it would be hard to delineate the responsibilities… You've got a fiber path maintained by the municipality with active equipment maintained by the ISP at each end. If the light coming out of the equipment at one end doesn't come out of the fiber at the other end, you have a problem in the municipality's domain. If the light makes it through in tact, you have a problem in the ISP's domain. There is equipment available that can test that fairly easily. OK, this one made my wife get scared I laughed so hard. You clearly have never tried to do this or had to work with different operators in the same physical network. Please, go talk to someone whose worked in the field of a FTTx network and describe this scenario to them. Its clear you don't want to hear it from me via email so please go do some research. I've talked to a few people doing exactly that. Yes, you need different test sets depending on which L2 gear is involved, but, in virtually ever case, there is a piece of test gear that can be used to test a loop independent of the configuration of the L2 gear in question. Yes, there is a meter for all the different kinds of technologies that you might want to support. For example a DOCSIS 3.0 DSAM from JDSU will run you around $8000.00 A PON meter with long range lasers (more than 10 miles) from JDSU or Trilithic will cost you nearly $10,000. Exactly how many of those kinds of meters do you want to have to buy? How many of your staff are you going to train on them (they do require training and knowledge to use)? For my proposed methods of build-out, no need for the long range lasers. As I said, everything should be within 8km of the MMR. As I suggested, the simpler approach is to require the complaining L2 provider to cooperate in the diagnostic process and provide access to the
Re: 2013.02.04 NANOG57 day 1 afternoon notes
Matt, Thanks very much (as always) for the great notes! Extremely helpful. Regards, -drc On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Notes from the afternoon session, including the community meeting, but minus most of the BCOP presentation have been posted: http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2013.02.04-NANOG57-day1-afternoon-session.txt it looks like apache2 serves up about 100 connections, then wedges. :( No time to troubleshoot it, but i'll try to check back once an hour and kick it in the head. Thank you Dave, our hero of the day for making sure the WCIT talk contents did *not* get sealed behind closed doors! round two begins tomorrow morning, bright and early. ^_^ Matt
Re: 2013.02.04 NANOG57 day 1 afternoon notes
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: Matt, Thanks very much (as always) for the great notes! Extremely helpful. Regards, -drc Glad they're useful--wish I could have been there, the social tomorrow night sounds like it will be absolutely stellar, in true Snowhorn fashion! :) Matt
Metro Ethernet, VPLS clarifications
Hi experts, I need some clarifications on these terms. Could somebody give explanations or share some links? When and how are these technologies used? Thanks in advance. -- Regards, Abzal
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On 13-02-04 19:48, Scott Helms wrote: same trench IF you have buried cable and there is room. If you have aerial plant (common in rural telco deployments, less common in muni networks) you can also string your fiber on the same poles that you either own or have attachment rights to but the thickness of the cable doesn't change your costs any. In Québec, some poles are owned by the telco and some by the electric utility. They have a deal with each other to gain access to each other's poles. However, that deal still involves engineering studies to ensure the weight of wiring/equipment on poles is acceptable. And this is where stringning heavier 867 strand cable could possibly make a difference compared to stringing lighter 4 strands (or however how many are used for GPON systems between OLT and splitter). After the ice storm of 1998 here, they are a bit more careful about how much weight they put on poles.
List of Comcast speeds in Chicago, IL (North side near I-94: Addisson/Irving Park/ area)
Could someone help verify the listed speeds for the different services for Comcast: Performance - 20mbps (Customer support is claiming it's now 15mbps) Blast - 30 mbps (Customer support is claiming it's now 20 mbps) I was getting 20+ download speed tests on Performance which is correct. When I told customer support I was getting half (because of packet loss) they brought this other information to my attention
Re: List of Comcast speeds in Chicago, IL (North side near I-94: Addisson/Irving Park/ area)
The folks in the forums at dslreports.com are generally on top of this like a hawk and are probably a better resource than here. For what its worth, Comcast often provides temporary speed enhancements for the first so many bytes in x seconds, (powerboost), which can often throw off short flash-based speedtests. On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Ishmael Rufus sakam...@gmail.com wrote: Could someone help verify the listed speeds for the different services for Comcast: Performance - 20mbps (Customer support is claiming it's now 15mbps) Blast - 30 mbps (Customer support is claiming it's now 20 mbps) I was getting 20+ download speed tests on Performance which is correct. When I told customer support I was getting half (because of packet loss) they brought this other information to my attention
