Re: Linode and/or Google Fiber contacts?
Once upon a time, Chris Adams said: > Anybody here from Linode and/or Google Fiber that can help out with > packet loss between these networks at NYIIX peering? It's been going on > for almost a week... opened a Linode case and they looked at the VM > host, also opened a Google Fiber case and got zero response (don't think > front-line support on either side is really getting it). Got some folks from Google Fiber looking at their side now, thanks! If anybody from Linode could check too, that'd still be nice. -- Chris Adams
Linode and/or Google Fiber contacts?
Anybody here from Linode and/or Google Fiber that can help out with packet loss between these networks at NYIIX peering? It's been going on for almost a week... opened a Linode case and they looked at the VM host, also opened a Google Fiber case and got zero response (don't think front-line support on either side is really getting it). I can MTR in each direction and the path appears symmetric, through NYIIX peering IPs (on both v4 and v6), and each sees packet loss at the first hop into the other network. I'm guessing one side or the other is having errors or has a congested port, but the regular support channels aren't getting this to the right people. Off-list contact is fine. -- Chris Adams
Re: Google Fiber abuse address does not exist
> On Feb 18, 2021, at 5:19 PM, Louie Lee wrote: > > Hey Chris, > > Thanks for reporting this. We had an issue that caused emails to addresses in > that domain to not be recognized. > > The email is no longer bouncing back, and emails to other googlefiber.net > addresses are confirmed working. > > Louie Thanks Warren and Louie for looking into it and getting it fixed. My abuse report has been received by the giant brain. I’m waiting for $DAYJOB to wise up and make me the DMR at ARIN. Coming soon…. —Chris
Re: Google Fiber abuse address does not exist
Hey Chris, Thanks for reporting this. We had an issue that caused emails to addresses in that domain to not be recognized. The email is no longer bouncing back, and emails to other googlefiber.net addresses are confirmed working. Louie On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:58 PM Chris Boyd wrote: > Can someone at ARIN tell them they need to fix this? > > From whois 136.32.164.64: > OrgAbuseHandle: GFA32-ARIN > OrgAbuseName: Google Fiber Abuse > OrgAbusePhone: +1-650-253- <(650)%20253-> > OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@googlefiber.net > OrgAbuseRef:https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/GFA32-ARIN > > Email response: > - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - > >(reason: 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not > exist. Please try) > > - Transcript of session follows - > ... while talking to gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com.: > >>> DATA > <<< 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. > Please try > <<< 550-5.1.1 double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or > <<< 550-5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at > <<< 550 5.1.1 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=NoSuchUser > kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp > 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown > <<< 503 5.5.1 RCPT first. kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp > Reporting-MTA: dns; lenny.gizmopartners.com > Received-From-MTA: DNS; 136-49-160-191.googlefiber.net > Arrival-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:38 GMT > > Final-Recipient: RFC822; ab...@googlefiber.net > Action: failed > Status: 5.1.1 > Remote-MTA: DNS; gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com > Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach > does not exist. Please try > Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:39 GMT > >
Re: Google Fiber abuse address does not exist
Whoops. Thank you for reporting this, it’s being looked into. W On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:01 PM Chris Boyd wrote: > Can someone at ARIN tell them they need to fix this? > > From whois 136.32.164.64: > OrgAbuseHandle: GFA32-ARIN > OrgAbuseName: Google Fiber Abuse > OrgAbusePhone: +1-650-253- > OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@googlefiber.net > OrgAbuseRef:https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/GFA32-ARIN > > Email response: > - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - > >(reason: 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not > exist. Please try) > > - Transcript of session follows - > ... while talking to gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com.: > >>> DATA > <<< 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. > Please try > <<< 550-5.1.1 double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or > <<< 550-5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at > <<< 550 5.1.1 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=NoSuchUser > kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp > 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown > <<< 503 5.5.1 RCPT first. kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp > Reporting-MTA: dns; lenny.gizmopartners.com > Received-From-MTA: DNS; 136-49-160-191.googlefiber.net > Arrival-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:38 GMT > > Final-Recipient: RFC822; ab...@googlefiber.net > Action: failed > Status: 5.1.1 > Remote-MTA: DNS; gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com > Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach > does not exist. Please try > Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:39 GMT > > -- Perhaps they really do strive for incomprehensibility in their specs. After all, when the liturgy was in Latin, the laity knew their place. -- Michael Padlipsky
Re: Google Fiber abuse address does not exist
i forwarded this to a colleague who has just taken a job that looks like he’s running abuse and security at g fiber. (not sure that he’s started work yet, it’s that new.) > On Feb 18, 2021, at 2:24 PM, TJ Trout wrote: > > Did you try opening a ticket with arin? > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:00 PM Chris Boyd <mailto:cb...@gizmopartners.com>> wrote: > Can someone at ARIN tell them they need to fix this? > > From whois 136.32.164.64 <http://136.32.164.64/>: > OrgAbuseHandle: GFA32-ARIN > OrgAbuseName: Google Fiber Abuse > OrgAbusePhone: +1-650-253- > OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@googlefiber.net <mailto:ab...@googlefiber.net> > OrgAbuseRef:https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/GFA32-ARIN > <https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/GFA32-ARIN> > > Email response: > - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - > mailto:ab...@googlefiber.net>> >(reason: 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not > exist. Please try) > > - Transcript of session follows - > ... while talking to gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com > <http://gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com/>.: > >>> DATA > <<< 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. > Please try > <<< 550-5.1.1 double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or > <<< 550-5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at > <<< 550 5.1.1 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=NoSuchUser > <https://support.google.com/mail/?p=NoSuchUser> kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp > 550 5.1.1 mailto:ab...@googlefiber.net>>... User > unknown > <<< 503 5.5.1 RCPT first. kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp > Reporting-MTA: dns; lenny.gizmopartners.com <http://lenny.gizmopartners.com/> > Received-From-MTA: DNS; 136-49-160-191.googlefiber.net > <http://136-49-160-191.googlefiber.net/> > Arrival-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:38 GMT > > Final-Recipient: RFC822; ab...@googlefiber.net <mailto:ab...@googlefiber.net> > Action: failed > Status: 5.1.1 > Remote-MTA: DNS; gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com <http://gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com/> > Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach > does not exist. Please try > Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:39 GMT >
Re: Google Fiber abuse address does not exist
Did you try opening a ticket with arin? On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:00 PM Chris Boyd wrote: > Can someone at ARIN tell them they need to fix this? > > From whois 136.32.164.64: > OrgAbuseHandle: GFA32-ARIN > OrgAbuseName: Google Fiber Abuse > OrgAbusePhone: +1-650-253- > OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@googlefiber.net > OrgAbuseRef:https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/GFA32-ARIN > > Email response: > - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - > >(reason: 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not > exist. Please try) > > - Transcript of session follows - > ... while talking to gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com.: > >>> DATA > <<< 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. > Please try > <<< 550-5.1.1 double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or > <<< 550-5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at > <<< 550 5.1.1 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=NoSuchUser > kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp > 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown > <<< 503 5.5.1 RCPT first. kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp > Reporting-MTA: dns; lenny.gizmopartners.com > Received-From-MTA: DNS; 136-49-160-191.googlefiber.net > Arrival-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:38 GMT > > Final-Recipient: RFC822; ab...@googlefiber.net > Action: failed > Status: 5.1.1 > Remote-MTA: DNS; gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com > Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach > does not exist. Please try > Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:39 GMT > >
Google Fiber abuse address does not exist
Can someone at ARIN tell them they need to fix this? From whois 136.32.164.64: OrgAbuseHandle: GFA32-ARIN OrgAbuseName: Google Fiber Abuse OrgAbusePhone: +1-650-253- OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@googlefiber.net OrgAbuseRef:https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/GFA32-ARIN Email response: - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - (reason: 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com.: >>> DATA <<< 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try <<< 550-5.1.1 double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or <<< 550-5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at <<< 550 5.1.1 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=NoSuchUser kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown <<< 503 5.5.1 RCPT first. kk5si203161pjb.1 - gsmtp Reporting-MTA: dns; lenny.gizmopartners.com Received-From-MTA: DNS; 136-49-160-191.googlefiber.net Arrival-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:38 GMT Final-Recipient: RFC822; ab...@googlefiber.net Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:52:39 GMT
Re: Google Fiber (KC) NOC contact
Hey Blake, Thanks for reaching out. I’m the IP Address Manager. Since this is more a matter of the CPE or local gateway router configuration, I’ve referred the matter to our Operation team to follow up on. FYI, our frontline call center does escalate matters rather promptly after a report is taken. They have very clear guidelines to escalate everything that they cannot correct on their own. Louie P.S. Yes, I know I CC'ed the NANOG list. I trust y'all not to abuse things. -- Louie Lee, 李景雲 Peering Coordinator (AS16591 <https://as16591.peeringdb.com/>) Network Capacity Manager IP Numbers Administrator Google Fiber lou...@google.com (650) 253-2847 *There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.* On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 7:51 AM Blake Hudson wrote: > Does someone from Google Fiber hang out on this list? I've contacted > arin-cont...@google.com (the WHOIS tech and admin contact), but not > gotten any response and I suspect contacting a frontline callcenter > would be fruitless. It appears that some portion of customers in KC are > being provided with a lame/broken NTP server address and it's causing > some VPN/Telephony problems for those affected. If someone has a better > POC please let me know so we can get this cleared up for us and other > businesses in the KC area. > > --Blake >
Google Fiber (KC) NOC contact
Does someone from Google Fiber hang out on this list? I've contacted arin-cont...@google.com (the WHOIS tech and admin contact), but not gotten any response and I suspect contacting a frontline callcenter would be fruitless. It appears that some portion of customers in KC are being provided with a lame/broken NTP server address and it's causing some VPN/Telephony problems for those affected. If someone has a better POC please let me know so we can get this cleared up for us and other businesses in the KC area. --Blake
Re: Google Fiber
95% sure that Google Fiber only sells access, not point to point or wave services. On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:30 AM Robert DeVita wrote: > Does anyone have a sales contact at Google Fiber, looking for Dark fiber > in Pflugerville, TX back to Datafoundry TX1 > > > > Thanks > > > > Rob > > > > [image: photo] > > [image: > https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/frames/frame_bubble_left_top_part.png] > > Robert DeVita > Managing Director, Mejeticks > > [image: > https://dn3tzca2xtljm.cloudfront.net/social_icons/24px/linkedin.png] > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/mejeticks> > > [image: https://dn3tzca2xtljm.cloudfront.net/social_icons/24px/twitter.png] > <http://twitter.com/mejeticks> > > [image: > https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/phone2.png] > 214-305-2444 <214-305-2444> > > [image: > https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/mobile.png] > 469-441-8864 <469-441-8864> > > [image: > https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/email1.png] > radev...@mejeticks.com > > [image: > https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/website.png] > www.mejeticks.com <http://www.mejeticks.com/> > > [image: > https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/address1.png] > 1919 McKinney Ave, Dallas, TX 75201 > > > > >
Google Fiber
Does anyone have a sales contact at Google Fiber, looking for Dark fiber in Pflugerville, TX back to Datafoundry TX1 Thanks Rob [photo] [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/frames/frame_bubble_left_top_part.png] Robert DeVita Managing Director, Mejeticks [https://dn3tzca2xtljm.cloudfront.net/social_icons/24px/linkedin.png]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/mejeticks> [https://dn3tzca2xtljm.cloudfront.net/social_icons/24px/twitter.png]<http://twitter.com/mejeticks> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/phone2.png] 214-305-2444 [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/mobile.png] 469-441-8864 [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/email1.png] radev...@mejeticks.com<mailto:radev...@mejeticks.com> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/website.png] www.mejeticks.com<http://www.mejeticks.com/> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/symbols/grey/small/address1.png] 1919 McKinney Ave, Dallas, TX 75201
Re: Google Fiber v6 PD only giving /64
I designed the original numbering plan, but handed it off a while back. Taking a look into this, thanks for the heads up. --Heather On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 11:58 PM Chris Adams wrote: > Anybody here from Google Fiber? When I first got it last year, my IPv6 > setup got a /56 prefix delegated. I now see that no matter what size I > request, I only get a /64. Is this intentional? > -- > Chris Adams >
Re: Google Fiber v6 PD only giving /64
Hi, > Anybody here from Google Fiber? When I first got it last year, my IPv6 > setup got a /56 prefix delegated. I now see that no matter what size I > request, I only get a /64. Is this intentional? Sounds broken, especially considering how people like Lorenzo have always fought for giving everybody plenty of address space... Cheers, Sander signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Google Fiber v6 PD only giving /64
Anybody here from Google Fiber? When I first got it last year, my IPv6 setup got a /56 prefix delegated. I now see that no matter what size I request, I only get a /64. Is this intentional? -- Chris Adams
Google Fiber contact
Can someone from Google Fiber contact me off list? Thanks. Mark Comcast T Core Network Services
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: 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/
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: 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: 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: 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
Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
I've been searching for a few days on information about Google Fiber's Kansas City deployment. While I wouldn't call Google secretive in this particular case, they haven't been very outgoing on some of the technologies. Based on the equipment they have deployed there is speculation they are doing both GPON and active thernet (point2point). I found this presentation: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf It has a very good summary of the tradeoffs we've been discussing regarding home run fibers with active ethernet compared with GPON, including costs of the eletronics compared to trenching, the space required in the CO, and many of the other issues we've touched on so far. Here's an article with some economics from several different deployments: http://fastnetnews.com/fiber-news/175-d/4835-fiber-economics-quick-and-dirty Looks like $500-$700 in capex per residence is the current gold standard. Note that the major factor is the take rate; if there are two providers doing FTTH they are both going to max at about a 50% take rate. By having one provider, a 70-80% take rate can be driven. Even with us a 4%, 10 year government bond, a muni network could finance out a $700/prem build for $7.09 per month! Add in some overhead and there's no reason a muni-network couldn't lease FTTH on a cost recovery bases to all takers for $10-$12 a month (no Internet or other services included). Anyone know of more info about the Google Fiber deployment? -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgp4GxILKmy7y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: I've been searching for a few days on information about Google Fiber's Kansas City deployment. While I wouldn't call Google secretive in this particular case, they haven't been very outgoing on some of the technologies. Based on the equipment they have deployed there is speculation they are doing both GPON and active thernet (point2point). I found this presentation: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf Its active ethernet. They looked at PON but ultimately rejected it since it fell below their speed goals (can't do gig connections on any flavor of PON today). Here is the architecture document: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf It has a very good summary of the tradeoffs we've been discussing regarding home run fibers with active ethernet compared with GPON, including costs of the eletronics compared to trenching, the space required in the CO, and many of the other issues we've touched on so far. Here's an article with some economics from several different deployments: http://fastnetnews.com/fiber-news/175-d/4835-fiber-economics-quick-and-dirty Looks like $500-$700 in capex per residence is the current gold standard. Note that the major factor is the take rate; if there are two providers doing FTTH they are both going to max at about a 50% take rate. By having one provider, a 70-80% take rate can be driven. Even with us a 4%, 10 year government bond, a muni network could finance out a $700/prem build for $7.09 per month! Add in some overhead and there's no reason a muni-network couldn't lease FTTH on a cost recovery bases to all takers for $10-$12 a month (no Internet or other services included). Anyone know of more info about the Google Fiber deployment? The biggest factor that Google has going for them is they are their own gear manufacturer, both the in home stuff and the access network. They invited several manufacturers to test but then sent them all packing. They are doing a ring (actually several rings) of Ethernet with nodes that then connect down to the neighborhood level. -- 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: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
- Original Message - From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org Here's an article with some economics from several different deployments: http://fastnetnews.com/fiber-news/175-d/4835-fiber-economics-quick-and-dirty Looks like $500-$700 in capex per residence is the current gold standard. Note that the major factor is the take rate; if there are two providers doing FTTH they are both going to max at about a 50% take rate. By having one provider, a 70-80% take rate can be driven. I was seeing 700 to drop, and another 650 to hook up; is that 5-700 supposed to include an ONT? Even with us a 4%, 10 year government bond, a muni network could finance out a $700/prem build for $7.09 per month! Add in some overhead and there's no reason a muni-network couldn't lease FTTH on a cost recovery bases to all takers for $10-$12 a month (no Internet or other services included). This is the class of numbers I was hoping to get to, yeah. 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?
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 05:03:52PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote: From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org Looks like $500-$700 in capex per residence is the current gold standard. Note that the major factor is the take rate; if there are two providers doing FTTH they are both going to max at about a 50% take rate. By having one provider, a 70-80% take rate can be driven. I was seeing 700 to drop, and another 650 to hook up; is that 5-700 supposed to include an ONT? I believe the $500-$700 would include an ONT, if required, but nothing beyond that. Hook up would include installing a home gateway, testing, setting up WiFi, installing TV boxes, etc. So in the model I advocate, the muni-network would have $500-$700/home to get fiber into the prem, and the L3-L7 service provider would truck roll a guy and supply the equipment that comprise another $500-$700 to turn up the customer. In Google Fiber's model they are both, so it's probably $1000-$1400 a home inclusive. $1400 @4% for 10 years is $14.17 a month per house passed. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpvPRn8QAqU0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
Sure, Verizon has been able to get their cost per home passed down to $700 (http://www.isuppli.com/Home-and-Consumer-Electronics/MarketWatch/Pages/Veri zons-FTTH-Expansion-Stoppage-Takes-Many-by-Surprise.aspx), but that does not include the drop, ONT, nor any home wiring to get from the ONT to the CPE within the home. That's still another $650 or so (slide 11 of http://www.natoa.org/events/NATOAPresentationCalix.pdf and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/technology/19fios.html?pagewanted=all_r=0 ). That's down from $1,021 in 2005 and $850 at the end of 2006 (http://connectedplanetonline.com/home/news/verizon_touts_fios_092706/). While my $DAYJOB's access vendor has a range of outdoor ONTs with different features, they generally cost from $400 to $700 apiece (plus ONT housing, power supply, battery, and power cable). If we assume Verizon, because of their purchasing power, can negotiate a fantastic discount, their average ONT cost probably still exceeds $200 apiece. Google is not concerned with traditional POTS in their offering, so they don't have to worry about backup power requirements (and costs), plus they're doing ActiveE, not GPON, so despite their low volume, Google probably has ONT costs somewhat similar or less than Verizon. 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. Looking again at the Verizon FiOS build, where there may be a complete overbuild but not every copper customer is converted to FiOS, the cost per home passed does not equal cost per home served. Note this BusinessWeek quote regarding FiOS, He estimates the project will end up having cost Verizon $4,000 per connected home. (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b4221046109606.htm) 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. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/778871-challenges-and-opportunities-for-goo gle-s-fiber-project-a-reality-and-sanity-check). From the same Seeking Alpha article, FiOS' cumulative historical cost per home passed is $1,352. 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 but hung on power poles, and they're starting their builds in areas of the city where there was a significant level of customer interest. All of that is going to translate into a lower cost per customer served than a service provider who decides to overbuild an entire locale, regardless of customer interest. So while Google may be able to pull off a $1,400 expenditure per home passed, Jay can't use that price point in his own calculation unless he's in similar construction environment and takes Google's selective deployment approach. Frank -Original Message- From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 4:40 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks? In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 05:03:52PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote: From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org Looks like $500-$700 in capex per residence is the current gold standard. Note that the major factor is the take rate; if there are two providers doing FTTH they are both going to max at about a 50% take rate. By having one provider, a 70-80% take rate can be driven. I was seeing 700 to drop, and another 650 to hook up; is that 5-700 supposed to include an ONT? I believe the $500-$700 would include an ONT, if required, but nothing beyond that. Hook up would include installing a home gateway, testing, setting up WiFi, installing TV boxes, etc. So in the model I advocate, the muni-network would have $500-$700/home to get fiber into the prem, and the L3-L7 service provider would truck roll a guy and supply the equipment that comprise another $500-$700 to turn up the customer. In Google Fiber's model they are both, so it's probably $1000-$1400 a home inclusive. $1400 @4% for 10 years is $14.17 a month per house passed. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
When comparing costs of building (per home passed/connected), it is also important to see if those quoted costs include the regulatory costs of dealing with cities. If a municipal project won't suffer costs of negotiating for diggging/building permits, already has the land to build the CO, and won't be delayed by stalled paperwork, this could represent a significant difference compared to an incumbent that constant hits a brick wall of bureaucracy which cost money and delays the project. (In Canada, a delay of a couple of months can cause a delay of 1 year due to winter). In the case of Google, with cities begging on their knees to get Google's project, I suspect they didn't have many problems getting the city's cooperation. Yet, there have been stories of delays due to bureaucracy. In the case of Verizon, I suspect those bureaucracy costs are much higher. The other aspect which you need to compare is existing infrastructure. If there are already conduits between CO and neighbourhood, and there is room inside, you can just blow your new fibre through them which costs a lot less than having to dig and install new conduits. (and space available is one of the issues that lead telcos to go GPON instead of wanting 1:1 strand to home ratios since that requires much more conduit capacity the closer you get to your point of aggregation. So when comparing both Verizon and Google projects, you need to factor exactly how much needed to be built for them, and how much will be needed for you. If you have 0 existing conduits and need to build 100% of your FTTH plant, while Verizon had x% of conduits already built, then your cost per home may be higher. BTW, out of curiosity, how many spare copper pairs were traditionally provisionsed on a cable run that passed 100 homes ? And in a fibre system, do you keep the same ratio of extra strands for each home passed ?
Re: Google Fiber - keeps you regular
There's one tiny detail: Published on Apr 1, 2012... It's April fool... :-) - Daniel On 12/07/2012 12:53 AM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote: Yep. But you know I wouldn't be surprised if Google entered that market. That's why I was asking. You never know these days. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:36 PM To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Google Fiber - keeps you regular All jokes about crappy Internet service aside, that is? On Friday, December 7, 2012, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote: Why does the youtube video link lead back to their Fiber Internet/TV offering? Maybe I'm lost but the video is about a Google Fiber Bar right? Otis -Original Message- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:31 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Google Fiber - keeps you regular Introducing the Google Fiber Bar you'll probably laugh so hard you won't even need the fiber
Google Fiber - keeps you regular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re0VRK6ouwIfeature=share you'll probably laugh so hard you won't even need the fiber
RE: Google Fiber - keeps you regular
Why does the youtube video link lead back to their Fiber Internet/TV offering? Maybe I'm lost but the video is about a Google Fiber Bar right? Otis -Original Message- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:31 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Google Fiber - keeps you regular http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re0VRK6ouwIfeature=share you'll probably laugh so hard you won't even need the fiber
Re: Google Fiber - keeps you regular
All jokes about crappy Internet service aside, that is? On Friday, December 7, 2012, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote: Why does the youtube video link lead back to their Fiber Internet/TV offering? Maybe I'm lost but the video is about a Google Fiber Bar right? Otis -Original Message- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com javascript:;] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:31 AM To: nanog@nanog.org javascript:; Subject: Google Fiber - keeps you regular Introducing the Google Fiber Barhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re0VRK6ouwIfeature=share you'll probably laugh so hard you won't even need the fiber -- --srs (iPad)
RE: Google Fiber - keeps you regular
Yep. But you know I wouldn't be surprised if Google entered that market. That's why I was asking. You never know these days. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:36 PM To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Google Fiber - keeps you regular All jokes about crappy Internet service aside, that is? On Friday, December 7, 2012, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote: Why does the youtube video link lead back to their Fiber Internet/TV offering? Maybe I'm lost but the video is about a Google Fiber Bar right? Otis -Original Message- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:31 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Google Fiber - keeps you regular Introducing the Google Fiber Bar you'll probably laugh so hard you won't even need the fiber -- --srs (iPad)
Re: Google Fiber - keeps you regular
If you look at www.google.com/fiber they do seem to be in that market now On Friday, December 7, 2012, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote: Yep. But you know I wouldn't be surprised if Google entered that market. That's why I was asking. You never know these days. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com javascript:;] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:36 PM To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. Cc: nanog@nanog.org javascript:; Subject: Re: Google Fiber - keeps you regular All jokes about crappy Internet service aside, that is? On Friday, December 7, 2012, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote: Why does the youtube video link lead back to their Fiber Internet/TV offering? Maybe I'm lost but the video is about a Google Fiber Bar right? Otis -Original Message- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com javascript:;] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:31 AM To: nanog@nanog.org javascript:; Subject: Google Fiber - keeps you regular Introducing the Google Fiber Bar you'll probably laugh so hard you won't even need the fiber -- --srs (iPad) -- --srs (iPad)
