subject:"RE\: Muni fiber\: L1 or L2\?"

 If the L1 provider's responsibility ends at the jack on the outside NIU,
 as an ILEC's does today with copper, then you have clean separation and
 easy access for both initial installation and for later
 troubleshooting--clear benefits that help mitigate nearly all the
 problems Scott refers to, at least from the L1 provider's perspective.


Stephen, I'd say this is much less clean in my experience than you're
describing.  In fact, I'd say that operationally its downright problematic
in many territories and not improving.  So if this is the model if how it
should be done I think we have a long way to go before doing it in a FTTx
world is remotely economical.  Now, this isn't a problem in all territories
or operators but it is common as dirt.





 --
 Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
 CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
 K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking





-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

 In part because I'm realizing that it is literally viable to plonk a 6509
 into the colo, get a 10G uplink and pump out a bunch of 1000base?X
 connections (or even 100base?X) to customers at a fairly low price
 per port. In this case, there wouldn't be any active L2 termination at
 the customer other than a media converter or router with an appropriate
 SFP.

 Owen



Just so you know, this isn't viable, at least not to scale.  You can on the
other hand use Cisco's ME line to do this even less expensively (so long as
you weren't planning on buying used 6509).



-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Masataka,

Numbers?  Examples?  This is simply incorrect in many places.  The only
reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it, are you
saying that all greenfield PON installs are cheaper done as Ethernet
without exception?


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Masataka Ohta 
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:

 Stephen Sprunk wrote:

  The fiber plant would presumably be paid for with 30-year bonds, same as
  any other municipal infrastructure (eg. water and sewer lines--the real
  pipes), for which interest rates are currently running around the rate
  of inflation.  There is no need to pay them off quickly.

 In addition, as PON is even less efficient initially when
 subscriber density is low and there are few subscribers to
 share a field splitter (unless extremely lengthy drop cables
 are used, which costs a lot), PON is slower to pay them off.

 Masataka Ohta





-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

I was in an Incognito user group meeting with one of the guys involved with
that project two years ago and we talked about it.  Its very cool and
frankly extreme engineering :)

He had some pictures of them dragging under sea cables themselves that blew
my mind.


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Warren Bailey 
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:

 Though I should note that GCI was my former employer and a well respected
 MSO and fiber infrastructure owner/operator. They are the smartest major
 player I've come across, and an all around good bunch of people.


 From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.



  Original message 
 From: Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com
 Date: 02/11/2013 4:44 PM (GMT-08:00)
 To: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org,nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?


 Check out GCI's Terranet project.


 From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.



  Original message 
 From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
 Date: 02/11/2013 4:37 PM (GMT-08:00)
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?


 On 11-Feb-13 18:23, Warren Bailey wrote:

  On 2/11/13 4:16 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
 wrote:
  Scott Helms wrote:
  IMO if you can't pay for the initial build quickly and run it
 efficiently then your chances of long term success are very low.
  That is not a business model for infrastructure such as gas,
 electricity, CATV, water and fiber network, all of which need long term
 planning and investments.
  Nearly all of the industries you mentioned below receive some type of
 local or federal/government funding. If I was going to build some kind of
 access network, I would be banging on the .gov door asking for grants and
 low interest loans to help roll out broadband to remote areas.
 I followed the link in a recent email here to the details on the Maine
 Fiber Co, and their web site indicates they got started with $7M in private
 funding--and a $25M grant from the feds for improving service to rural
 areas.  That radically changes the economics, just as I'm sure it did for
 other utilities.

 S

 --
 Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
 CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
 K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking






-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-12 Thread Masataka Ohta

Scott Helms wrote:

 Numbers?  Examples?

Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.

 This is simply incorrect in many places.  The only
 reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it,

No, the only reason to insist on PON is to make L1 unbundling
not feasible.

 are you
 saying that all greenfield PON installs are cheaper done as Ethernet
 without exception?

No, SS is cheaper than PON without exception.

If the initial density of subscribers is high, SS is fine.

If it is not, initially, most electric equipment, OE port,
fibers, splitters and a large closures containing the splitters
of PON can not be shared by two or more subscribers, which means
PON incurs much more material and labor cost for each initial
subscriber than SS.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Masataka Ohta 
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:

 Scott Helms wrote:

  Numbers?  Examples?

 Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.


Japan has one of the highest population densities of major economies in the
world with an average density of 873 per square mile.  The US on the other
hand has 89 per square mile.  Canada has an average density of 10 people
per square mile.  I would also say that Japan's consumer behavior and
regulatory climate are all significantly different from the North American
market so making blanket statements is pretty silly.

If you want to make your case then why don't you, the only Japanese 
English speaker on this list I know of, extract the math behind the NTT
papers and present why its cheaper in Japan and we can then see if that
applies equally in the US  Canada.


  This is simply incorrect in many places.  The only
  reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it,

 No, the only reason to insist on PON is to make L1 unbundling
 not feasible.


I don't know what conspiracy theory you're ascribing to here, but this is
incorrect.


  are you
  saying that all greenfield PON installs are cheaper done as Ethernet
  without exception?

 No, SS is cheaper than PON without exception.


Prove it.



 If the initial density of subscribers is high, SS is fine.

 If it is not, initially, most electric equipment, OE port,
 fibers, splitters and a large closures containing the splitters
 of PON can not be shared by two or more subscribers, which means
 PON incurs much more material and labor cost for each initial
 subscriber than SS.

 Masataka Ohta




-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-12 Thread Jason Baugher

Scott, I've been down this road with Masataka. over the last few days. I
gave up.


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:

 On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Masataka Ohta 
 mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:

  Scott Helms wrote:
 
   Numbers?  Examples?
 
  Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.
 

 Japan has one of the highest population densities of major economies in the
 world with an average density of 873 per square mile.  The US on the other
 hand has 89 per square mile.  Canada has an average density of 10 people
 per square mile.  I would also say that Japan's consumer behavior and
 regulatory climate are all significantly different from the North American
 market so making blanket statements is pretty silly.

 If you want to make your case then why don't you, the only Japanese 
 English speaker on this list I know of, extract the math behind the NTT
 papers and present why its cheaper in Japan and we can then see if that
 applies equally in the US  Canada.

 
   This is simply incorrect in many places.  The only
   reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it,
 
  No, the only reason to insist on PON is to make L1 unbundling
  not feasible.
 

 I don't know what conspiracy theory you're ascribing to here, but this is
 incorrect.

 
   are you
   saying that all greenfield PON installs are cheaper done as Ethernet
   without exception?
 
  No, SS is cheaper than PON without exception.
 

 Prove it.


 
  If the initial density of subscribers is high, SS is fine.
 
  If it is not, initially, most electric equipment, OE port,
  fibers, splitters and a large closures containing the splitters
  of PON can not be shared by two or more subscribers, which means
  PON incurs much more material and labor cost for each initial
  subscriber than SS.
 
  Masataka Ohta
 



 --
 Scott Helms
 Vice President of Technology
 ZCorum
 (678) 507-5000
 
 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-12 Thread Masataka Ohta

Scott Helms wrote:

 Numbers?  Examples?

 Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.

 Japan has one of the highest population densities of major economies in the

The examples are in rural area and I already stated population
density in English.

 No, the only reason to insist on PON is to make L1 unbundling
 not feasible.

 I don't know what conspiracy theory you're ascribing to here, but this is
 incorrect.

PON being more expensive than SS, that is the only explanation.

 No, SS is cheaper than PON without exception.

 Prove it.

See above or below.

 If the initial density of subscribers is high, SS is fine.

 If it is not, initially, most electric equipment, OE port,
 fibers, splitters and a large closures containing the splitters
 of PON can not be shared by two or more subscribers, which means
 PON incurs much more material and labor cost for each initial
 subscriber than SS.

 Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-12 Thread Masataka Ohta

Jason Baugher wrote:

 Scott, I've been down this road with Masataka. over the last few days. I
 gave up.

You have lost instantly, because you insisted on 32:1, which
makes expensive PON even more expensive.

It's stupid to insist on 32:1 to have 6 trunk fibers and 31 drop
fibers within a cable for 192 subscribers, because with 8:1, you
only need 24 trunk fibers and 7 drop fibers.

Your theory is not consistent with the reality.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-12 Thread Warren Bailey

At this point I think the topic has been exhausted. If you participate in
a conversation, try to chime in with thoughtful and insightful points.
We're on here to help each other, if you want to measure girth there is
probably a better venue to do so. I don't think anyone lost anything,
other than a vast amount of wasted time trying to decipher your claims and
opinion. It's easy to tell people how full of it they are, but if you're
looking for a venue to argue (we have all done it) you should move on to
greener pastures. If all of this is difficult to understand, I will
summarize: Acting like a prick on a discussion list makes all of your
opinions and concerns completely ignored. No one wants to deal with an
arrogant prick, especially one who says someone lost because your
opinion seems to be more valid to yourself.



On 2/12/13 3:03 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:

Jason Baugher wrote:

 Scott, I've been down this road with Masataka. over the last few days. I
 gave up.

You have lost instantly, because you insisted on 32:1, which
makes expensive PON even more expensive.

It's stupid to insist on 32:1 to have 6 trunk fibers and 31 drop
fibers within a cable for 192 subscribers, because with 8:1, you
only need 24 trunk fibers and 7 drop fibers.

Your theory is not consistent with the reality.

   Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-11 Thread Masataka Ohta

Jason Baugher wrote:

 No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate someone who don't want
 to be educated.

 You're not trying to educate anyone at all. You're just stomping
 your foot and insisting that you're right rather than have a
 meaningful discussion.

So far, I have shown several figures derived from FTTH
deployment in the real world to show that PON is more
expensive than SS.

If you can't accept it, feel free to try to educate us. But,
do so with quantitative reasons.

 I did some research on what NTT has done on fiber deployment.
 From what I've seen, they split things up into feeder,
 distribution and drop cable, with the splitter between
 feeder and distribution.

So?

That is ordinary PON that you didn't have to do any research.

 We also do single-stage 32:1 splits.

NTT do not, well, with reasons.

 If we ran each drop cable from the
 splitter all the way to the house, we would have extremely long drop
 cables, and lots of them all bundled together going down the street. We
 don't do that, we use mainline distribution cable like I described above.

Then, you need to have on the trunk cable, for 32
subscriebrs, a huge closure with a splitter and 32
(or less, if some are shared) small closures, which
costs more than SS, because of extra material and
labor for the huge closure.

A political problem is that it becomes obvious that 32
(or less) closures required for SS is less expensive
than 32 long drop cables with conventional PON.

Worse, you have to have spare 31 fibers in the cable,
which denies the theory that PON were better than SS
because fibers were expensive.

If a trunk cable covers 196 subscribers, which is typical,
it is obviously a strange design to have only 6 trunk fibers,
because fibers are so expensive, but to have other 31 drop
fibers in the same cable.

You can reduce the number of spare fibers if you give
up 32:1 splitting at the first splitter and use the
fibers in more complex way to use them in both directions.
However, you need more spare fibers if the number of
subscribers increase and some splitter overflows and no
lengthy service interruption is allowed.

That is, reusing some fibers in a trunk cable as intermediate
drop is difficult to manage for future configuration changes.

It becomes even worse for NTT, which claims that it is
doing fair unbundling of its fibers, because NTT must
prepare 124 spare fibers, if they allow three other
competitors share its cable.

So, there is no reason to simply have SS just with small
closures, which can be trivially unbundled.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 05-Feb-13 11:37, Scott Helms wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
 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.
 Overlaid?  Could you clarify that?
 Sure, ring, hub  spoke, home run, star these are all descriptions of the 
 physical architecture and many layer 2 technologies will happily use them all 
 including Ethernet.  To use a specific example an existing SONET ring (OC-3 
 to be precise) had be in service with an ILEC for more than a decade.  This 
 physical topology was a common one with a physical ring of fiber (32 strands, 
 yes this was built back in the day) connected to Add/Drop
 Multiplexers (Fujitsu IIRC) along the ring as needed to deliver 25,000 or 
 shorter copper loops either directly from the same cabinet that ADM was in or 
 from a subtended Digital Loop Carrier off of a spur (collapsed ring) of the 
 ring.  Now, SONET connections work off a pair of fibers, one for transmit and 
 one for receive.  To run Ethernet (initially 100mbps but now 10G) we simply 
 lit 2 of the remaining 30 strands to overlay an Ethernet ring on top of the 
 SONET ring.  We then placed switches in the same remote cabinets we had the 
 ADMs and DLCs and started trenching the fiber drops.

... but now you are dictating what technology is used, via the active
aggregation equipment (i.e. ADMs) you installed at your nodes on the
ring.  Also, the fiber provider now has to maintain and upgrade that
active aggregation equipment, as opposed to just patching fiber from one
port to another.

The point of this exercise is to design and implement a fiber plant that
can support _any_ technology, including ones that haven't even been
invented yet.

 Owen's assertion (and mine) is that a loop architecture *requires* active 
 equipment, suited to the phy layer protocol, at each node.  And while those 
 loop fibers are running SONET, they can't be running anything else at the 
 same time.
 You're confounding the physical layer topology with the layer 2 protocol.  
 You can't run SONET and Ethernet on the same physical fiber at the same time 
 (unless you use WDM but that's confusing the discussion) but you'd never 
 build a ring of fiber with only two strands.

If you're going to dictate SONET ADMs, with a fixed set of downstream
connection types, why _not_ build your ring with one pair of fiber? 
Hint: the fiber itself is a tiny fraction of the total cost.

You're optimizing the wrong variable as a result of assuming you can
predict what technology will be used 50+ years in the future.

 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.
 I infer from that continuation of your thought that you mean the second: 
 active optical muxes out in the plant.

 I'm sure I've made clear why that design limits me in ways I don't want to 
 be limited when building a fiber plant for a 50 year lifetime, but let's 
 address your responses below.
 The only limitation you have is a limited supply of total fibers (hint, this 
 is a big reason why its cheaper to build and run).

Exactly!  Lay enough fiber that you don't _need_ aggregation at the
local level, i.e. enough that you can patch _every_ customer connection
directly to their destination of choice without any active aggregation
equipment at all.  Every pair of fiber can be running whatever
technology the customer desires, whether that is SONET, Ethernet, or
something else that hasn't even been invented yet.

 The vast majority of businesses don't want [dark fiber] at the price
 they have to pay for it now -- or more to the point, the consultants
 who do their IT don't. You have no real way, I should think, to
 extrapolate whether that will continue as prices drop, especially if
 sharply.
 The vast majority of businesses don't know and don't care about HOW
 their connectivity is delivered and wouldn't know the difference
 between Layer 1 and Layer 2 if it punched them in the face. Almost all
 businesses want INTERNET connectivity at the highest quality  speed
 at the lowest cost and that's it. There are a small percentage, mainly
 larger businesses, that do have special requirements, but those
 special requirements very seldom include a L1 anything.

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

- Original Message -
 From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org

 Sure, almost nobody asks for dark fiber today because they know it costs
 several orders of magnitude more than a T1 or whatever. However, if the
 price for dark fiber were the same (or lower), latent demand would
 materialize. Why would I pay through the nose for a T1 when I can light
 the fiber myself with 10GE for $20/mo?

This was part of my argument, yes.
h
And it even occurred to me over the weekend that this will reduce the
engineering charges to get me onto the already-built backbone loops:

They don't need to build to my *CO*, just to a splice at the edge of
my city, and *I* can backhaul the uplinks in myself.

 What you're missing is that in this model, _every_ connection is L1 from
 the fiber owner's perspective. Let service providers worry about L2 and
 above.

In fairness to Scott, he didn't *miss* it, he simply has his feasible 
slider set to a different place than I/we do.

 Why would the ISP have to build and maintain a lot of
 infrastructure?
 All they need is a fiber-capable Ethernet switch in a colo to turn up
 their first customer. That's a lot simpler than trying to turn up
 their first customer via an ILEC's DSLAM, for instance.

Well, that means *they have to build out in my city*; I can't aggregate
L1 and backhaul it to them.

 There's nothing wrong with  the muni operating a L2 (or even L3) carrier
 of last resort, just to ensure that _some_ useful service is available
 to residents. However, it should (a) be priced high enough to attract
 competitors and (b) be a distinct entity, treated by the fiber arm as
 no different from any other L1 customer. None of the shenanigans like the
 ILECs play, where the wholesale rate to competitors is higher than the
 retail rate for the ILEC's own service.

That's true at L3, but at L2, my goal is to encourage *much smaller* ISPs
(like the one I used to engineer in 1996, Centurion Technologies; we were
profitable with about 400 dialup customers into a 40 and a 20 modem dialup
bank backhauled by 512kb/s *and I would come to your house and make it work
if I had to*.  :-).

By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that; unlike L3,
I don't believe it actually needs to be a separate company; I expect
most ISP business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an accomodation to potential
larger ISPs who want to do it all themselves.

Or FiOS.  :-)

 You're missing the simplicity of dark fiber. The carrier orders a L1
 circuit from a customer to their facility. The L1 provider just patches
 one fiber pair to another fiber pair, which can be done by a trained
 monkey. Then the carrier connects their own equipment to the fiber at
 their own facility and at the customer site, everything lights up and
 the spice^Wdata flows. Again, that can be done by a trained monkey.
 You don't need a CCIE or even a CCNA to do this. Heck, it's even
 simpler than what's required today for DSL, cable or satellite
 installers.

Scott asserts that it's not that easy In The Real World; it remains to
be seen whether he's right.

 (Note that inside wiring is a completely separate issue, and carriers
 _will_ have to train techs on how to do that since few are familiar with
 fiber, but that is an optional service they can charge extra for. The
 L1 provider's responsibility ends at the NIU on an outside wall, same
 as an ILEC's, so it's not their problem in the first place.)

The L2 might end there, too, if I decide on outside ONTs, rather than
an optical jackblock inside.

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?

2013-02-11 Thread Scott Helms

 ... but now you are dictating what technology is used, via the active
 aggregation equipment (i.e. ADMs) you installed at your nodes on the
 ring.  Also, the fiber provider now has to maintain and upgrade that
 active aggregation equipment, as opposed to just patching fiber from one
 port to another.

 The point of this exercise is to design and implement a fiber plant that
 can support _any_ technology, including ones that haven't even been
 invented yet.


Active devices are a requirement, the only question is where they live in
the CO or in the plant.  Putting them in the plant is the lower cost choice
in many/most deployments both in the short AND the long term.  Active
devices of some type will continue to be a requirement, again the only
difference is where they are deployed.  Swapping out one active device for
another happens every day.



 If you're going to dictate SONET ADMs, with a fixed set of downstream
 connection types, why _not_ build your ring with one pair of fiber?
 Hint: the fiber itself is a tiny fraction of the total cost.


I'm not dictating anything, especially NOT SONET.



 You're optimizing the wrong variable as a result of assuming you can
 predict what technology will be used 50+ years in the future.


Designing for a fundamental change sounds like a really nice idea, except
predicting the requirements for a fundamental change is impossible.  Its
entirely possible that in 50 years the fiber we're talking about burying
isn't the current standard, fiber is no longer the access method of choice,
that putting active electronics in the field becomes a requirement, or
something else equally unpredictable happens.



  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.
  I infer from that continuation of your thought that you mean the
 second: active optical muxes out in the plant.
 
  I'm sure I've made clear why that design limits me in ways I don't want
 to be limited when building a fiber plant for a 50 year lifetime, but let's
 address your responses below.
  The only limitation you have is a limited supply of total fibers (hint,
 this is a big reason why its cheaper to build and run).

 Exactly!  Lay enough fiber that you don't _need_ aggregation at the
 local level, i.e. enough that you can patch _every_ customer connection
 directly to their destination of choice without any active aggregation
 equipment at all.  Every pair of fiber can be running whatever
 technology the customer desires, whether that is SONET, Ethernet, or
 something else that hasn't even been invented yet.


But that's wasteful in many/most deployments and is more expensive in the
short AND the long run.  Basically you're betting on a need that doesn't
exist at the current rate of bandwidth growth for much more than 50 years
and that's assuming that we don't get higher rates of Ethernet or that we
can't run CWDM (which we already can).





 Most customers will buy from a service provider, who lights the fiber.
 The point of dark fiber is that the service provider gets to decide how
 to light the fiber to said customers, allowing competition based on
 innovation.  If the fiber owner puts active aggregation equipment in the
 path, though, that means the technologies available are dictated by that
 equipment's capabilities--and you have introduced another point of
 failure into the system.


The statement on reliability is false, that system WILL be there, its just
a question of where it is and who owns.  I'd argue that sharing at layer 1
reduces reliability because a given set of plant personnel have to deal
with many more technologies.  I'd also say it leads to MORE service
provider lock in since not only does the business have to potentially
change IP's but they may have to change (and pay for) the access device.
 Doing aggregation at layer 2 does limit the technology choices to
businesses, but again what business is choosing something other than
Ethernet today?  What other technologies can you not encapsulate in a VLAN
or VPLS?




 Why should the fiber owner care what they use it for?  It's just dark
 fiber, patched from one place to another, so the rental price is the
 same whether they light it at 10Mb/s or 10x100Gb/s.

 What you're missing is that in this model, _every_ connection is L1 from
 the fiber owner's perspective.  Let service providers worry about L2 and
 above.


Because the plant owner ends up supporting a ton of technologies they don't
know.  This isn't a unsolvable problem, its simply not an economical way to
run a system for most muni operators.



 Why would the ISP have to

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 11-Feb-13 13:13, Jay Ashworth wrote:
 From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
 Sure, almost nobody asks for dark fiber today because they know it costs 
 several orders of magnitude more than a T1 or whatever. However, if the 
 price for dark fiber were the same (or lower), latent demand would 
 materialize. Why would I pay through the nose for a T1 when I can light the 
 fiber myself with 10GE for $20/mo?
 This was part of my argument, yes.
 h
 And it even occurred to me over the weekend that this will reduce the 
 engineering charges to get me onto the already-built backbone loops:

 They don't need to build to my *CO*, just to a splice at the edge of my city, 
 and *I* can backhaul the uplinks in myself.

Good point.  I missed that since I was applying the same general model
to the (suburban) municipality where I live, which already has no
shortage of fiber _to the CO_.  In the rural case originally described,
reducing the middle mile problem helps too.

 What you're missing is that in this model, _every_ connection is L1 from the 
 fiber owner's perspective. Let service providers worry about L2 and above.
 In fairness to Scott, he didn't *miss* it, he simply has his feasible 
 slider set to a different place than I/we do.

I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of fiber,
which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads him to invite
all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for a purely L1
provider, simply would not apply.

 Why would the ISP have to build and maintain a lot of
 infrastructure?  All they need is a fiber-capable Ethernet switch in a colo 
 to turn up their first customer. That's a lot simpler than trying to turn up 
 their first customer via an ILEC's DSLAM, for instance.
 Well, that means *they have to build out in my city*; I can't aggregate L1 
 and backhaul it to them.

As the saying goes, you must be present to win.  If there's _any_
fiber available to the CO, there shouldn't be much trouble getting an
ISP to show up when they have ridiculously cheap access to your customer
base.

 There's nothing wrong with  the muni operating a L2 (or even L3) carrier of 
 last resort, just to ensure that _some_ useful service is available to 
 residents. However, it should (a) be priced high enough to attract 
 competitors and (b) be a distinct entity, treated by the fiber arm as no 
 different from any other L1 customer. None of the shenanigans like the ILECs 
 play, where the wholesale rate to competitors is higher than the retail rate 
 for the ILEC's own service.
 That's true at L3, but at L2, my goal is to encourage *much smaller* ISPs 
 (like the one I used to engineer in 1996, Centurion Technologies; we were 
 profitable with about 400 dialup customers into a 40 and a 20 modem dialup 
 bank backhauled by 512kb/s *and I would come to your house and make it work 
 if I had to*.  :-).

 By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that; unlike L3, I 
 don't believe it actually needs to be a separate company; I expect most ISP 
 business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an accomodation to potential larger ISPs 
 who want to do it all themselves.

 Or FiOS.  :-)

We have a philosophical disagreement here.  I fully support public
ownership of public ownership of natural monopolies, and the fiber
plant itself (L1) certainly qualifies.

However, running L2 (or L3) over that fiber is _not_ a natural monopoly,
so I do _not_ support public ownership.  At most, I could stomach a
provider of last resort to guarantee resident access to useful
services, in the IMHO unlikely event that only one (or zero) private
players showed up, or a compelling need to provide some residents (eg.
the elderly or indigent, schools, other public agencies, etc.) with
below-cost services.

 (Note that inside wiring is a completely separate issue, and carriers _will_ 
 have to train techs on how to do that since few are familiar with fiber, but 
 that is an optional service they can charge extra for. The L1 provider's 
 responsibility ends at the NIU on an outside wall, same as an ILEC's, so 
 it's not their problem in the first place.)
 The L2 might end there, too, if I decide on outside ONTs, rather than an 
 optical jackblock inside.

I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on the
outside wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber owner can test
to.  If an L2 operator has active equipment, put it inside--and it would
be part of the customer-purchased (or -leased) equipment when they turn
up service.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

- Original Message -
 From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org

  By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that;
  unlike L3, I don't believe it actually needs to be a separate
  company; I expect most ISP business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an
  accomodation to potential larger ISPs who want to do it all
  themselves.
 
  Or FiOS. :-)
 
 We have a philosophical disagreement here. I fully support public
 ownership of public ownership of natural monopolies, and the fiber
 plant itself (L1) certainly qualifies.
 
 However, running L2 (or L3) over that fiber is _not_ a natural monopoly,
 so I do _not_ support public ownership. At most, I could stomach a
 provider of last resort to guarantee resident access to useful
 services, in the IMHO unlikely event that only one (or zero) private
 players showed up, or a compelling need to provide some residents (eg.
 the elderly or indigent, schools, other public agencies, etc.) with
 below-cost services.

I dunno; I tend to buy the arguments that there is a difference; as long
as the L2 access is itself sold to comers at cost, including the internal
accounting between the fiber and L2 sides of the house.

I don't even plan to offer quantity discounts.  :-)

  (Note that inside wiring is a completely separate issue, and
  carriers _will_ have to train techs on how to do that since few are
  familiar with fiber, but that is an optional service they can
  charge extra for. The L1 provider's responsibility ends at the NIU
  on an outside wall, same as an ILEC's, so it's not their problem in
  the first place.)

  The L2 might end there, too, if I decide on outside ONTs, rather
  than an optical jackblock inside.
 
 I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on the
 outside wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber owner can test
 to. If an L2 operator has active equipment, put it inside--and it would
 be part of the customer-purchased (or -leased) equipment when they turn
 up service.

Yes, but that means the ISP has to drill holes in walls *and push fiber 
jumpers through them*; I'm not at all happy with that idea.

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?

2013-02-11 Thread Scott Helms


 I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of fiber,
 which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads him to invite
 all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for a purely L1
 provider, simply would not apply.


Not at all, I've obsessing about all of the costs.  IMO if you can't pay
for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently then your chances of
long term success are very low.  L1, at scale, sharing is simply
impractical for all of its philosophical benefits for more municipal
network operators.  That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but I can
point to lots of successful muni operators who are the layer 3 provider.  I
can point to several that offer open access at layer 2 successfully but I
don't know of any doing L1 sharing that would call it a success.  Do you
know of some that do?




 We have a philosophical disagreement here.  I fully support public
 ownership of public ownership of natural monopolies, and the fiber
 plant itself (L1) certainly qualifies.

 However, running L2 (or L3) over that fiber is _not_ a natural monopoly,
 so I do _not_ support public ownership.  At most, I could stomach a
 provider of last resort to guarantee resident access to useful
 services, in the IMHO unlikely event that only one (or zero) private
 players showed up, or a compelling need to provide some residents (eg.
 the elderly or indigent, schools, other public agencies, etc.) with
 below-cost services.


Too many places have either no or very poor services being provided from
the market for me to take this stance.  I have observed that muni networks
are more likely to fail than investor or privately owned operators but I
don't know what causes that.  I suspect that some is because in many cases
the city doesn't manage it effectively but in other cases the major factor
may be that the area is simply hard to run a broadband business in and even
break even, which may be why no normal operator set up shop there.

I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on the
 outside wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber owner can test
 to.  If an L2 operator has active equipment, put it inside--and it would
 be part of the customer-purchased (or -leased) equipment when they turn
 up service.


What ILEC is offering L1 fiber access at all?



 S

 --
 Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
 CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
 K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking





-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-11 Thread Owen DeLong

 
 I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on the
 outside wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber owner can test
 to. If an L2 operator has active equipment, put it inside--and it would
 be part of the customer-purchased (or -leased) equipment when they turn
 up service.
 
 Yes, but that means the ISP has to drill holes in walls *and push fiber 
 jumpers through them*; I'm not at all happy with that idea.

Why not? Someone will have to.

Owen

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 11-Feb-13 16:37, Scott Helms wrote:

 I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of
 fiber, which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads
 him to invite all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for
 a purely L1 provider, simply would not apply.


 Not at all, I've obsessing about all of the costs.  IMO if you can't
 pay for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently then your
 chances of long term success are very low.

The fiber plant would presumably be paid for with 30-year bonds, same as
any other municipal infrastructure (eg. water and sewer lines--the real
pipes), for which interest rates are currently running around the rate
of inflation.  There is no need to pay them off quickly.  Heck, some
forward-thinking folks might even see the fiber as paying for itself
through increased property values (and therefore tax revenues) and not
demand that it pay back its bonds through access fees at all, just the
(minimal) operating costs.

L2 and above, though, is another story due to the (relatively) short
depreciation cycle and higher operational costs--yet another reason they
should be separated.

 L1, at scale, sharing is simply impractical for all of its
 philosophical benefits for more municipal network operators.  That's
 not to say there aren't exceptions, but I can point to lots of
 successful muni operators who are the layer 3 provider.  I can point
 to several that offer open access at layer 2 successfully but I don't
 know of any doing L1 sharing that would call it a success.  Do you
 know of some that do?

There have been several examples cited in this thread, but I don't know
how many (if any) meet both your criteria, i.e. muni _and_ open at L1.

 We have a philosophical disagreement here.  I fully support public
 ownership of public ownership of natural monopolies, and the
 fiber plant itself (L1) certainly qualifies.

 However, running L2 (or L3) over that fiber is _not_ a natural
 monopoly, so I do _not_ support public ownership.  At most, I
 could stomach a provider of last resort to guarantee resident
 access to useful services, in the IMHO unlikely event that only
 one (or zero) private players showed up, or a compelling need to
 provide some residents (eg. the elderly or indigent, schools,
 other public agencies, etc.) with below-cost services.


 Too many places have either no or very poor services being provided
 from the market for me to take this stance.

... hence my reluctant acceptance of having a publicly-owned provider
of last resort for L2 and L3 services.  I would hate to see all that
fiber go unused just because no private players showed up to the party. 
OTOH, it is still fundamentally different from L1.

(Note that I also endorse this same model in urban and suburban markets,
where there is no shortage of folks wanting to offer service--but few
players with access to enough capital to put the necessary fiber in
place, none of whom are interested in open access.)

 I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on
 the outside wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber
 owner can test to.  If an L2 operator has active equipment, put it
 inside--and it would be part of the customer-purchased (or
 -leased) equipment when they turn up service.


 What ILEC is offering L1 fiber access at all?

Think copper.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-11 Thread Masataka Ohta

Scott Helms wrote:

 IMO if you can't pay
 for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently then your chances of
 long term success are very low.

That is not a business model for infrastructure such as gas,
electricity, CATV, water and fiber network, all of which
need long term planning and investments.

Anyway, as SS is less expensive than PON, there is no reason to
insist on PON.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-11 Thread Warren Bailey

Nearly all of the industries you mentioned below receive some type of
local or federal/government funding. If I was going to build some kind of
access network, I would be banging on the .gov door asking for grants and
low interest loans to help roll out broadband to remote areas. My former
employer was given a TON of money (upwards of 80MM) to run Fiber across a
body of water and into a microwave ring for distribution to some of the
most remote customers in the world.

I think that if this type of project gained any amount of traction, you
would be given a check from a giant and told to enjoy your life on the
beach. Just my .02 though.

On 2/11/13 4:16 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:

Scott Helms wrote:

 IMO if you can't pay
 for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently then your chances
of
 long term success are very low.

That is not a business model for infrastructure such as gas,
electricity, CATV, water and fiber network, all of which
need long term planning and investments.

Anyway, as SS is less expensive than PON, there is no reason to
insist on PON.

   Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 11-Feb-13 15:24, Jay Ashworth wrote:
 From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
 By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that; unlike L3, I 
 don't believe it actually needs to be a separate company; I expect most ISP 
 business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an accomodation to potential larger ISPs 
 who want to do it all themselves.
 We have a philosophical disagreement here. I fully support public ownership 
 of public ownership of natural monopolies, and the fiber plant itself (L1) 
 certainly qualifies.

 However, running L2 (or L3) over that fiber is _not_ a natural monopoly, so 
 I do _not_ support public ownership. At most, I could stomach a provider of 
 last resort to guarantee resident access to useful services, in the IMHO 
 unlikely event that only one (or zero) private players showed up, or a 
 compelling need to provide some residents (eg. the elderly or indigent, 
 schools, other public agencies, etc.) with below-cost services.
 I dunno; I tend to buy the arguments that there is a difference; as long as 
 the L2 access is itself sold to comers at cost, including the internal 
 accounting between the fiber and L2 sides of the house.

I don't see much of a difference in that respect between L2 and L3
services.  OTOH, I see a clear difference between L1 and L2/L3, as above.

 I don't even plan to offer quantity discounts.  :-)

Good.  That's one of the ways that big carriers claim to be playing by
the same rules as everyone else yet get away with substantially lower
costs than smaller competitors.  See also: the ARIN fee schedule.

 The L2 might end there, too, if I decide on outside ONTs, rather than an 
 optical jackblock inside.
 I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on the outside 
 wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber owner can test to. If an 
 L2 operator has active equipment, put it inside--and it would be part of the 
 customer-purchased (or -leased) equipment when they turn up service.
 Yes, but that means the ISP has to drill holes in walls *and push fiber 
 jumpers through them*; I'm not at all happy with that idea.

You mean their contract installers, who do the same thing today with
POTS, DSL, cable and satellite lines.  It'll probably be the same
people, even.

OTOH, an external NIU means the fiber company can install with zero
cooperation from any given property owner since no entry is required. 
Customers are going to need internal wiring done anyway to get it from
the demarc to wherever they want their fiber modem installed, so you
can penetrate the exterior wall at the same time--when they're in a more
cooperative mood because they're going to get an immediate tangible benefit.

An exterior demarc has clear troubleshooting/maintenance benefits to the
fiber owner.  Let the L2/L3 provider deal with inside wiring problems.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 11-Feb-13 18:23, Warren Bailey wrote:

 On 2/11/13 4:16 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
 Scott Helms wrote:
 IMO if you can't pay for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently 
 then your chances of long term success are very low.
 That is not a business model for infrastructure such as gas, electricity, 
 CATV, water and fiber network, all of which need long term planning and 
 investments.
 Nearly all of the industries you mentioned below receive some type of local 
 or federal/government funding. If I was going to build some kind of access 
 network, I would be banging on the .gov door asking for grants and low 
 interest loans to help roll out broadband to remote areas.
I followed the link in a recent email here to the details on the Maine Fiber 
Co, and their web site indicates they got started with $7M in private 
funding--and a $25M grant from the feds for improving service to rural areas.  
That radically changes the economics, just as I'm sure it did for other 
utilities.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-11 Thread Warren Bailey

Check out GCI's Terranet project.

From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.

 Original message 
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Date: 02/11/2013 4:37 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 11-Feb-13 18:23, Warren Bailey wrote:

 On 2/11/13 4:16 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
 Scott Helms wrote:
 IMO if you can't pay for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently 
 then your chances of long term success are very low.
 That is not a business model for infrastructure such as gas, electricity, 
 CATV, water and fiber network, all of which need long term planning and 
 investments.
 Nearly all of the industries you mentioned below receive some type of local 
 or federal/government funding. If I was going to build some kind of access 
 network, I would be banging on the .gov door asking for grants and low 
 interest loans to help roll out broadband to remote areas.
I followed the link in a recent email here to the details on the Maine Fiber 
Co, and their web site indicates they got started with $7M in private 
funding--and a $25M grant from the feds for improving service to rural areas.  
That radically changes the economics, just as I'm sure it did for other 
utilities.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-11 Thread Warren Bailey

Though I should note that GCI was my former employer and a well respected MSO 
and fiber infrastructure owner/operator. They are the smartest major player 
I've come across, and an all around good bunch of people.


From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.



 Original message 
From: Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com
Date: 02/11/2013 4:44 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org,nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?


Check out GCI's Terranet project.


From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.



 Original message 
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Date: 02/11/2013 4:37 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?


On 11-Feb-13 18:23, Warren Bailey wrote:

 On 2/11/13 4:16 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
 Scott Helms wrote:
 IMO if you can't pay for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently 
 then your chances of long term success are very low.
 That is not a business model for infrastructure such as gas, electricity, 
 CATV, water and fiber network, all of which need long term planning and 
 investments.
 Nearly all of the industries you mentioned below receive some type of local 
 or federal/government funding. If I was going to build some kind of access 
 network, I would be banging on the .gov door asking for grants and low 
 interest loans to help roll out broadband to remote areas.
I followed the link in a recent email here to the details on the Maine Fiber 
Co, and their web site indicates they got started with $7M in private 
funding--and a $25M grant from the feds for improving service to rural areas.  
That radically changes the economics, just as I'm sure it did for other 
utilities.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

- Original Message -
 From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp

 In addition, as PON is even less efficient initially when
 subscriber density is low and there are few subscribers to
 share a field splitter (unless extremely lengthy drop cables
 are used, which costs a lot), PON is slower to pay them off.

In case you missed it, I was the OP, and you don't have to convince *me*
not to use PON; I already didn't want to.

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?

- Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com

 On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
 
  Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
  copper services brought into the home.

 Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the
 penetration.

What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*.

If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then
that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the
ISP field tech will have to work it.

*This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott
is scared of.

No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the 
drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.

 I see no reason not to have the residential install tech that normally
 extends the demarc and/or installs whatever required IW (IF?) solution
 shouldn't do this.

Hopefully that explains my concern.

 As others have pointed out, I see good reason for the muni to operate the
 L1 plant as a natural monopoly. Time and time again, we've seen that an
 L1 plant requires very high density or nearly 100% market share to be
 economically viable. Even in the case of very high density you still usually
 only get a minute number of L1 providers and almost never more than 2
 per media type (rarely even more than 1).

I honestly don't actually expect any L1 providers.

But that doesn't mean I'm willing to foreclose the possibility.

 However, when it comes to inside wiring (or fiber), I see no benefit to not
 leaving that to the first service provider to install each residence and
 possibly even being redone for every install. Some providers may use
 ONTs, others may not. (ONT is, after all AE/PON specific and there's no
 reason a provider couldn't drop a 24 port Gig-E switch in the colo with
 a 10G uplink (or a stack of them) and sell Gig connections on regular
 1000baseFX (or LX or SX or whatever) service.

Sure.  

 I'm not saying that's necessarily a good business model, but, I'm saying
 that the muni really should avoid encumbering its L1 offering with
 any additional technologies anywhere.

Yup; I've been saying that right along.  That's why I'd prefer to do the
install as optical patch/interior, if I can sell it.

Doesn't mean I don't understand why that might be troublesome.

That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it
through on order.

 If they want to run L2 or L3 service of last resort, I have no problem with
 that, but, it should be completely separate from their L1 offering and should
 avoid any blurring of the lines.

I believe, Owen, that that's the first time I've heard you extend that 
opinion to L2; everyone had me pretty much convinced that my plan to 
offer L2 was not likely to cause competitive pressure in the way the L3
service would.

Had I misunderstood you?

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?

2013-02-11 Thread Owen DeLong


On Feb 11, 2013, at 20:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
 
 On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
 
 Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
 copper services brought into the home.
 
 Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the
 penetration.
 
 What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*.
 

Why? Why can't it be drop cable, or, require the technician to place
the patch cord in appropriate innerduct to protect it?

 If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then
 that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the
 ISP field tech will have to work it.

I disagree. It could be either a connectorized drop cable or a patch cord.
If it's a patch cord, you could require appropriate innerduct from the
external jackbox to the interior termination point.

 *This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott
 is scared of.

So you're afraid of installers handling fiber patch cords, or, you're 
afraid of the patch cords not holding up after installed, or what?

 No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the 
 drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.

Given that set of requirements, I would opt for the interior jack box.

The muni should not be providing ONTs as part of it's L1 service and
their L1 service should be the same product for everyone, whether it's
Muni L2, Muni L3+L2, or any other service provider or set of providers
doing the L2, L3, etc.

There should be no active components in the muni L1 product.

 
 I see no reason not to have the residential install tech that normally
 extends the demarc and/or installs whatever required IW (IF?) solution
 shouldn't do this.
 
 Hopefully that explains my concern.
 

I think I understand your concern. I'm not sure I agree with it.

 As others have pointed out, I see good reason for the muni to operate the
 L1 plant as a natural monopoly. Time and time again, we've seen that an
 L1 plant requires very high density or nearly 100% market share to be
 economically viable. Even in the case of very high density you still usually
 only get a minute number of L1 providers and almost never more than 2
 per media type (rarely even more than 1).
 
 I honestly don't actually expect any L1 providers.
 
 But that doesn't mean I'm willing to foreclose the possibility.
 

You should absolutely expect L1 providers.

The L2 and/or L3 services should be operated strictly as the back-up provider
of last resort and/or to keep the other providers honest.

 However, when it comes to inside wiring (or fiber), I see no benefit to not
 leaving that to the first service provider to install each residence and
 possibly even being redone for every install. Some providers may use
 ONTs, others may not. (ONT is, after all AE/PON specific and there's no
 reason a provider couldn't drop a 24 port Gig-E switch in the colo with
 a 10G uplink (or a stack of them) and sell Gig connections on regular
 1000baseFX (or LX or SX or whatever) service.
 
 Sure.  
 

In case I wasn't clear... Everything beyond the jack box counts as IW (IF?)
from my perspective.

 I'm not saying that's necessarily a good business model, but, I'm saying
 that the muni really should avoid encumbering its L1 offering with
 any additional technologies anywhere.
 
 Yup; I've been saying that right along.  That's why I'd prefer to do the
 install as optical patch/interior, if I can sell it.
 

Sure, I can understand that. The problem is when you get into the business
of doing interior terminations on customer premises that aren't actually 
ordering
service at this time, you open yourself up to a host of installation 
difficulties and
increased costs.

That's why I think the better solution is an exterior patch box with a 
requirement
that all patches into the box be brought out inside innerduct.

 Doesn't mean I don't understand why that might be troublesome.
 
 That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it
 through on order.

How do you propose to do your validation tests against fiber coiled in
a box?

 
 If they want to run L2 or L3 service of last resort, I have no problem with
 that, but, it should be completely separate from their L1 offering and should
 avoid any blurring of the lines.
 
 I believe, Owen, that that's the first time I've heard you extend that 
 opinion to L2; everyone had me pretty much convinced that my plan to 
 offer L2 was not likely to cause competitive pressure in the way the L3
 service would.

I'm not sure whether offering L2 would cause competitive pressure the way
L3 would, but, I do think that there is a lot of benefit and I'm becoming more
convinced by some of the other arguments that clean layer separation at
L1 is well worth while.

 
 Had I misunderstood you?
 

My opinion is evolving with the

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 11-Feb-13 22:33, Jay Ashworth wrote:
 What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a
 patchcord*. If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external*
 jackbox, then that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop
 cable -- and the ISP field tech will have to work it. *This* *will*
 cause the installation reliability problems that Scott is scared of.

OTOH, that will be the L2+ providers' problem, and the _level_ of
problems will be inversely proportional to how well they train/pay their
field staff/contractors.  IOW, the incentives are properly aligned with
the desired behavior.

If the L1 provider's responsibility ends at the jack on the outside NIU,
as an ILEC's does today with copper, then you have clean separation and
easy access for both initial installation and for later
troubleshooting--clear benefits that help mitigate nearly all the
problems Scott refers to, at least from the L1 provider's perspective.

 No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the
 drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.

IMHO, both of those options are unacceptable, for different reasons.

 That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it
 through on order. 

Once the tail is poked through, though, you no longer have an exterior
test point that is easily accessed.  If the L2 and L1 providers are
arguing over whose fault a problem is, they not only have to both show
up at the same time, they also have to arrange for the property owner
(or their agent) to be present as well to let them inside to continue
their testing and bickering.  That won't end well for either party.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-10 Thread Masataka Ohta

Jason Baugher wrote:

 You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
 topic.

 I'm shocked that you waste time trying to educate us.

No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate someone who don't want
to be educated.

 You're the one making the assertion, it's not my job to help you make it.

So, you don't have to be educated.

 Installing more lengthy drop cable, in addition to trunk cable,
 means more labor.

 Installing a bulky PON closure with splitter means more labor.
 
 Drops from a splitter vs drops from a splice case for your SS Not much
 difference from what I've seen.

Except for length, size and cost, there is not much difference.

They all are to have drop cables.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-10 Thread Stephen Sprunk

On 04-Feb-13 15:17, Jean-Francois Mezei 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).

This is not a show-stopper.  In my state (TX), electric utilities have
been strictly segregated into generation, distribution and retail.  When
I have a problem with my service, I call my retailer, who puts in a
ticket with the distributor (i.e. grid operator).  However, since the
distributor has an equal relationship with _all_ retailers, rather than
also having a retail arm itself (as in the telco model), there is no
service problem.  If anything, service is _better_ than when
distribution and retailing were done by the same (monopoly) utility
company because there are now formal SLAs and penalties.

 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.

Wrong.  As soon as retailer 2 puts in the connect order, everything gets
switched over within one business day.  The distributor stops billing
retailer 1 because they're no longer in the picture.

Now, if different CPE is required (not an issue for electricity), then
the customer would notice that the CPE from retailer 1 suddenly stops
working.  They would then unplug it and follow the directions that came
in the box with the CPE from retailer 2.  No truck roll needed, unless
they paid extra for that.  (In a slightly different space with similar
costs, prices and volumes, one carrier said rolling a truck for
installation would blow their profit margin for the entire year.)

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-10 Thread Stephen Sprunk

On 02-Feb-13 14:07, Scott Helms wrote:
 A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the 
 foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its simple 
 not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs.  The optimal open 
 access network (with current or near future technology) is well known.
  Its called Ethernet and the methods to do triple play and open access are 
 well documented not to mention already in wide spread use. Trying to enforce 
 a layer 1 approach would be more expensive than the attempts to make this 
 work with Packet Over SONET or even ATM.

It would be more expensive in the short term, yes.  But forcing the use
of SONET, or ATM, or Ethernet, or any other random technology to save
money in the short term will end up costing you more in the long term. 
You will end up locked into a merry-go-round of upgrades every time
someone invents a better technology--or locked into an obsolete
technology because (as is often the case with govt in the US) there is
no funding to upgrade.

You're focused on equipment, which has a 3-5 yr depreciation cycle,
rather than the facilities, which have a 30-50 yr depreciation cycle. 
It's a totally different mindset.

 What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative?

Active equipment in the ONS, limited topology, forced uniformity rather
than innovation, etc.

 What problem are you tying to solve?

The goal at hand is an OSP that will last 50+ years without any
significant change.  Considering the rapid evolution of technology over
the last 10-20 years, the only safe bet is home run fiber.  Let service
providers decide what technology is best to light up said fiber in any
given year.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-10 Thread Stephen Sprunk

On 03-Feb-13 14:33, Scott Helms wrote:
 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 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.

Slightly more expensive in the short term, yes.  In the long term, no,
especially if you consider the opportunity costs of _not_ being able to
deploy new technologies in the future--something only home run dark
fiber can guarantee.

 Handing out connections at layer 1 is both more expensive and less efficient. 
  Its also extremely wasteful (which is why its more expensive) since your 
 lowest unit you can sell is a fiber strand whether the end customer wants a 3 
 mbps connection or a gig its the same to the city.

So what?  How any particular fiber happens to be lit is irrelevant to
the muni--and it doesn't change their cost structure one iota.  Dark
fiber is dark fiber.

 I'm not saying you shouldn't sell dark fiber, I'm saying that in 99% of the 
 cities you can't build a business model around doing just that unless your 
 city doesn't want to break even on the build and maintenance.

As a private operator, no, you probably can't build a business model
around that.  A muni has different economics, though.  At the cost
levels being thrown around here, it doesn't seem like there would be
_any_ difficulty in breaking even, which is all a muni needs to do.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-10 Thread Jason Baugher

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Masataka Ohta 
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:

 Jason Baugher wrote:

  You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
  topic.

  I'm shocked that you waste time trying to educate us.

 No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate someone who don't want
 to be educated.


You're not trying to educate anyone at all. You're just stomping your foot
and insisting that you're right rather than have a meaningful discussion.


  You're the one making the assertion, it's not my job to help you make it.

 So, you don't have to be educated.


 Installing more lengthy drop cable, in addition to trunk cable,
  means more labor.
 
  Installing a bulky PON closure with splitter means more labor.
 
  Drops from a splitter vs drops from a splice case for your SS Not
 much
  difference from what I've seen.

 Except for length, size and cost, there is not much difference.

 They all are to have drop cables.


I did some research on what NTT has done on fiber deployment. From what
I've seen, they split things up into feeder, distribution and drop cable,
with the splitter between feeder and distribution. Amazingly enough, that's
what we do as well. Feeder to splitter, then on down the street breaking
off at strategic splice cases where drops go to houses. The only difference
between that and our active infrastructure is the presence of the splitter.

We also do single-stage 32:1 splits. If we ran each drop cable from the
splitter all the way to the house, we would have extremely long drop
cables, and lots of them all bundled together going down the street. We
don't do that, we use mainline distribution cable like I described above.

The last thing I feel that I need to point out is that what works in one
type of area doesn't necessarily work in another. Fiber deployment in a
large urban area is a completely different animal than in a 40-50K
population town in the midwest USA.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

 Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
 
 Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?

That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
which does not contribute to reduce the number of fibers in a
trunk cable.

 16 is a safe number.

Do you mean a splitter in field should be shared by 16
subscribers?

Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail,
total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times
more than the trunk cable length.

Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON.

OTOH, if concentration is 2:1 or less, it is, again, obvious that
SS is better than PON, because of extra complexity of PON.

So, 4:1 is the safe number to obfuscate lack of merit of PON.

If you can read Japanese or FTTH is serious business of you
worth hiring a translator of your own, you can find average
number of subscribers sharing a splitter in field is 3.68,
a little less than 4, from:

http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/COLUMN/20080619/308665/

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-09 Thread Robert E. Seastrom


Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp writes:

 Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

 Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
 
 Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?

 That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
 which does not contribute to reduce the number of fibers in a
 trunk cable.

 16 is a safe number.

 Do you mean a splitter in field should be shared by 16
 subscribers?

 Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail,
 total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times
 more than the trunk cable length.

 Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON.

You're confusing fiber architecture with what gets laid on top of it.
Where the splitters go is entirely irrelevant.

Rule of thumb in the US is that 80% of the costs of a fiber build are
in engineering, planning, RoW acquisition, lawyers, etc.  Of the
remaining 20%, more of it is labor than materials.  Price per fiber
strand in the bundle is noise in the larger equation.

You have to pay for splitters in the PON architecture regardless of
where you put them, of course, so just bake that into the port cost
side of per-customer-served.

 OTOH, if concentration is 2:1 or less, it is, again, obvious that
 SS is better than PON, because of extra complexity of PON.

Again, home run central splitter vs. distributed splitter architecture
has nothing to do with PON being better or worse than a technology
that forces single strand all the way to the endpoint.

 So, 4:1 is the safe number to obfuscate lack of merit of PON.

 If you can read Japanese or FTTH is serious business of you
 worth hiring a translator of your own, you can find average
 number of subscribers sharing a splitter in field is 3.68,
 a little less than 4, from:

   http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/COLUMN/20080619/308665/

Having actually been involved in building a business plan surrounding
this, I don't need to read Japanese to be able to tell you that the
outside plant engineering was clearly assigned to the madogiwazoku if
they're only getting a 4:1 split on average.

-r

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-09 Thread Jason Baugher

You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
document says? That is hilarious.  How about you point out a reference
written in a language common to North America, since this IS NANOG.

Anyone here doing or know someone doing 4-1 or 8-1 splits, in a typical
American town? I believe most people were talking about areas 5
population.

Our main cost is labor. Fiber, fdh, splitters, etc... are marginal.
On Feb 9, 2013 5:42 AM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:

 Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

  Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
 
  Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?

 That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
 which does not contribute to reduce the number of fibers in a
 trunk cable.

  16 is a safe number.

 Do you mean a splitter in field should be shared by 16
 subscribers?

 Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail,
 total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times
 more than the trunk cable length.

 Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON.

 OTOH, if concentration is 2:1 or less, it is, again, obvious that
 SS is better than PON, because of extra complexity of PON.

 So, 4:1 is the safe number to obfuscate lack of merit of PON.

 If you can read Japanese or FTTH is serious business of you
 worth hiring a translator of your own, you can find average
 number of subscribers sharing a splitter in field is 3.68,
 a little less than 4, from:

 http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/COLUMN/20080619/308665/

 Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-09 Thread Jay Ashworth

- Original Message -
 From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp

 Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
 
  Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
 
  Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or
  32?
 
 That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
 which does not contribute to reduce the number of fibers in a
 trunk cable.

Not to my understanding.

  16 is a safe number.
 
 Do you mean a splitter in field should be shared by 16
 subscribers?

He means that, yes.

 Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail,
 total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times
 more than the trunk cable length.
 
 Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON.

Nope.  We're all looking at you funny because your math seems *exactly*
backwards.

Let me plot it for you.

Assume 100m from the access mux (OLT) to the ONT:

2M from the OLT to the CO patch
73M from the CO patch to the neighborhood pedestal
25M from the pedestal to each house (assume a spherical neighborhood).

So, if we put the splitter in the pedestal, splitting 16 houses, we get

2 + 73 + (25 * 16) = 475 meters of total glass, plus 1 16:1 splitter.

If we put the splitter in the CO (which I believe is what you mean by
SS; we call it home-run fiber), you get:

2 + ((73 + 25) * 16) = 1570 meters of total glass, optionally plus 1 16:1
splitter, if you're still doing PON, instead of AE.

So, over three times as much fiber if you're not putting the splitter
in the field, which is... the opposite of what you assert?

Or am I dense?

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?

2013-02-09 Thread Robert E. Seastrom


Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com writes:

 Our main cost is labor. Fiber, fdh, splitters, etc... are marginal.

dingdingdingding WE HAVE A WINNER.  :-)

-r

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

 Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail,
 total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times
 more than the trunk cable length.

 Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON.
 
 You're confusing fiber architecture with what gets laid on top of it.
 Where the splitters go is entirely irrelevant.

If you ignore so lengthy drop cables.

 Rule of thumb in the US is that 80% of the costs of a fiber build are
 in engineering, planning, RoW acquisition, lawyers, etc.

That's obviously because of your madogiwazoku quality of
engineering.

 Of the
 remaining 20%, more of it is labor than materials.  Price per fiber
 strand in the bundle is noise in the larger equation.

Drop cables increase the length of the bundle and labor for it.

  http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/COLUMN/20080619/308665/
 
 Having actually been involved in building a business plan surrounding
 this,

As a person who have been involved in  building a business plan
surrounding this several times, it is obvious to me that you
have no or little experience on FTTH.

 I don't need to read Japanese to be able to tell you that the
 outside plant engineering was clearly assigned to the madogiwazoku if
 they're only getting a 4:1 split on average.

Of course, anyone who try to use PON for FTTH is madogiwazoku like
you.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jason Baugher wrote:

 You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
 document says?

You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
topic.

BTW, it is not my document but an article in a famous online
magazine.

 How about you point out a reference
 written in a language common to North America, since this IS NANOG.

Feel free to do so.

 Anyone here doing or know someone doing 4-1 or 8-1 splits, in a typical
 American town? I believe most people were talking about areas 5
 population.

The figure of 3.68-1 is by NTT.

 Our main cost is labor. Fiber, fdh, splitters, etc... are marginal.

You never forget labor cost.

Installing more lengthy drop cable, in addition to trunk cable,
means more labor.

Installing a bulky PON closure with splitter means more labor.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jay Ashworth wrote:

 So, over three times as much fiber if you're not putting the splitter
 in the field, which is... the opposite of what you assert?

That is a very minor material cost.

What matters is labor, which is mostly proportional to not total
length of fiber but total length of cable (including both trunk
and drop).

Note also that sharing a drop cable between multiple subscribers
is virtually impossible.

 Or am I dense?

Feel free to call yourself so.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-09 Thread Warren Bailey

Japan has fiber optic internet all figured out, however cable dressing 101
was a class everyone skipped.

http://www.dannychoo.com/post/en/1653/Japan+Optic+Fiber+Internet.html


On 2/9/13 4:13 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:

Jason Baugher wrote:

 You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
 document says?

You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
topic.

BTW, it is not my document but an article in a famous online
magazine.

 How about you point out a reference
 written in a language common to North America, since this IS NANOG.

Feel free to do so.

 Anyone here doing or know someone doing 4-1 or 8-1 splits, in a typical
 American town? I believe most people were talking about areas 5
 population.

The figure of 3.68-1 is by NTT.

 Our main cost is labor. Fiber, fdh, splitters, etc... are marginal.

You never forget labor cost.

Installing more lengthy drop cable, in addition to trunk cable,
means more labor.

Installing a bulky PON closure with splitter means more labor.

   Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-09 Thread Jason Baugher

On Feb 9, 2013 6:14 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:

 Jason Baugher wrote:

  You are seriously saying I should hire a translator to tell me what your
  document says?

 You don't have to, as you are not seriously interested in the
 topic.


If you say so. In your own mind you obviously know far more about this
topic than anyone else. I'm shocked that you waste time trying to educate
us.

 BTW, it is not my document but an article in a famous online
 magazine.


There are many famous online magazines. Some have merit. That one may. Who
knows?

  How about you point out a reference
  written in a language common to North America, since this IS NANOG.

 Feel free to do so.


You're the one making the assertion, it's not my job to help you make it.

  Anyone here doing or know someone doing 4-1 or 8-1 splits, in a typical
  American town? I believe most people were talking about areas 5
  population.

 The figure of 3.68-1 is by NTT.

  Our main cost is labor. Fiber, fdh, splitters, etc... are marginal.

 You never forget labor cost.

 Installing more lengthy drop cable, in addition to trunk cable,
 means more labor.

 Installing a bulky PON closure with splitter means more labor.

Drops from a splitter vs drops from a splice case for your SS Not much
difference from what I've seen.


 Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jay Ashworth wrote:

 As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
 to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
 unless subscriber density is very high.
 
 Oh, ghod; we're not gonna go here, again, are we?

That PON is more expensive than SS is the reality of an example
contained in a document provided by regulatory body (soumu sho)
of Japanese government.

http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/policyreports/chousa/bb_seibi/pdf/041209_2_14.pdf.

Assume you have 4000 subscribers and total trunk cable length
is 51.1Km, which is the PON case with example and trunk cable
length will be identical regardless of whether you use PON
or SS.

The problem of PON is that, to efficiently share a fiber and
a splitter, they must be shared by many subscribers, which
means drop cables are longer than those of SS.

For example, if drop cables of PON are 10m longer in average than
that of SS, it's total length is 40km, which is *SIGNIFICANT*.

Just as the last miles matter, the last yards do matter.

 Yes, a PON physical build can be somewhat cheaper, because it multiplexes
 your trunk cabling from 1pr per circuit to as many as 16-32pr per circuit
 on the trunk, allowing you to spec smaller cables.

That is a negligible part of the cost. Cable cost is not very
sensitive to the number of fibers in a cable.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Masataka Ohta wrote:

 Assume you have 4000 subscribers and total trunk cable length

Correction. Though I wrote 4000, it is a population and the number
of subscribers are 1150.

 For example, if drop cables of PON are 10m longer in average than
 that of SS, it's total length is 40km, which is *SIGNIFICANT*.

Total drop cable length is still 11.5km and is *SIGNIFICANT*.

Note that when population density is lower, extra drop cable
length will be longer that 10m is now a very humble estimation.

As for equipment cost, for CO

PON 92000 KJPY/1150
SS 182000 KJPY/3100

and for CP

PON 33200 KJPY/1150
SS  84600 KJPY/3100

not so different but SS is a little more inexpensive.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-08 Thread Jean-Francois Mezei

On 13-02-08 03:36, Masataka Ohta wrote:

 The problem of PON is that, to efficiently share a fiber and
 a splitter, they must be shared by many subscribers, which
 means drop cables are longer than those of SS.

Pardon my ignorance here, but could you explain why the cables would be
physically different in the last mile ?

It is my understanding that the last mile of a PON and a point to point
would be indentical with individual strands for each home passed, and
then a drop between the cable and each home that wishes to connect.

Why would this be different in a PON vs Point to Point system ?

Wher I see a difference is between the neighbourhood aggregation point
and the CO where the PON system will have just 1 strand for 32 homes
whereas point to point will have 1 strand per home passed. But the
lengths should be the same, shouldn't they ?

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-08 Thread Jason Baugher

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:

Jay Ashworth wrote:

As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
unless subscriber density is very high.

Oh, ghod; we're not gonna go here, again, are we?

That PON is more expensive than SS is the reality of an example
contained in a document provided by regulatory body (soumu sho)
of Japanese government.

http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/policyreports/chousa/bb_seibi/pdf/041209_2_14.pdf
.

Sorry, but I can't read Japanese, and the pictures aren't enough to explain
the thrust of the document.

Also, you keep using the acronym SS. Maybe I'm showing ignorance, but
what are you referring to? A little Googling this morning only came up with
SS-WDM PON, which is completely different than the PON vs Active debate
we've been having.

Assume you have 4000 subscribers and total trunk cable length
is 51.1Km, which is the PON case with example and trunk cable
length will be identical regardless of whether you use PON
or SS.

The problem of PON is that, to efficiently share a fiber and
a splitter, they must be shared by many subscribers, which
means drop cables are longer than those of SS.

For example, if drop cables of PON are 10m longer in average than
that of SS, it's total length is 40km, which is *SIGNIFICANT*.

Just as the last miles matter, the last yards do matter.

Yes, a PON physical build can be somewhat cheaper, because it multiplexes
your trunk cabling from 1pr per circuit to as many as 16-32pr per circuit
on the trunk, allowing you to spec smaller cables.

That is a negligible part of the cost. Cable cost is not very
sensitive to the number of fibers in a cable.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-08 Thread Alain Hebert

Hi,

If by FTTH you mean the ADSL2+/VDSL offering they packaged as Fibe
(yes the named it that).

It is available to resellers...  /wave

-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net   
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443

On 02/06/13 18:02, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
 On 13-02-06 17:12, Scott Helms wrote:
 Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that
 PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any
 other technology I'm aware of
 By default, Telus in western Canada has deployed ethernet based DSL for
 wholesale, although PPPoE is available. Its own customers are ethernet
 based wth DHCP service.

 Some of the ISPs have chosen PPPoE since it makes it easier to do usage
 accounting at the router (since packets are already asscoated with the
 PPPoE session account).

 The difference is that Telus had purchased/developed software that made
 it easy to change the PVC to point a user to one ISP or the other, so
 changing ISPs is relatively painless. Bell Canada decided to abandon
 etyernet based DSL and go PPPoE because it didn't want to develop that
 software.

 Bell is deploying PPPoE for its FTTH (which is not *yet) available to
 wholesalers, something I am hoping to help change in the coming months)


 However, the australian NBN model is far superior because it enables far
 more flexibility such as multicasting etc. PPPoE is useless overhead if
 you have the right management tools to point a customer to his ISP. (and
 it also means that the wholesale infrastructure can be switch based
 intead of router based).

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jason Baugher wrote:

 In a greenfield build, cost difference for plant between PON and active
 will be negligible for field-based splitters, non-existent for CO-based
 splitters.

If you choose to have CO-based splitters, you need to have MDF
for L1 unbundling, and 1:8 (or 1:4, 1:32 or whatever) optical
splitter module for PON, combination of which requires more
CO space and money than SS (single star) optical equipment (just
MDF).

 On the CO-side electronics, however... I think it's safe to say that you
 can do GPON under $100/port.

Never ignore space and cost of optical splitters required only
for PON.

Note that the splitters cost even if they are located in field.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:

 The problem of PON is that, to efficiently share a fiber and
 a splitter, they must be shared by many subscribers, which
 means drop cables are longer than those of SS.
 
 Pardon my ignorance here, but could you explain why the cables would be
 physically different in the last mile ?

Drop cables are not for last miles, but for last yards.

Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.

Let's also assume that 1150 subscribers are evenly distributed over
51km trunk cable, which means distance between adjacent subscribers
is 44.3m.

 Why would this be different in a PON vs Point to Point system ?

If you use SS, you need a closure every 44.3m drop cable length
from which will be 5 or 10m.

 -C---C---C---C---C---C---C-  trunk cable
  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   drop cable
  S   S   S   S   S   S   S

 S: Subscriber
 C: Closure

OTOH, if you use PON and have 4 drop cables from an in-field
splitter, two drop cables needs extra 22.2 m and other two
needs extra 66.5 m.

 C---C-  trunk cable
   || ||   || || ^
 +-+| |+-+   +-+| |+---  |
 |  | |  |   |  | |  | drop cable
 |   +--+ +--+   |   |   +--+ +--+   |
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   v
 S   S   S   S   S   S   S

 S: Subscriber
 C: Closure

In this case, total extra drop cable length for PON is 51km,
identical to the trunk cable length.

It all depends how (initial and subsequent) subscribers are
distributed, but tendency is same.

As for cost for closures, while SS needs four times more
closures than PON, a closure for SS is simpler and cheaper
than that for PON to purchase, install and maintain.

 Wher I see a difference is between the neighbourhood aggregation point
 and the CO where the PON system will have just 1 strand for 32 homes
 whereas point to point will have 1 strand per home passed. But the
 lengths should be the same, shouldn't they ?

Never ignore topology at the last yards.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-08 Thread Robert E. Seastrom


Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp writes:

 Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.

Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?

16 is a safe number.

-r

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-07 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson


On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:

The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't 
significantly more than a Gig-E card.  Now, as I said there is no 
advantage to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface 
are not significant.


There has always been a substantial price difference for ATM/POS compared 
to ethernet.


But when designing ETTH networks, the cost saving is in the use of very 
simple devices. L2/L3 switches all the way. No tunneling, no fancy 
encap/decap Q-in-Q etc. Enough intelligence to do the BCP38 stuff to 
prevent spoofing, MitM-attacks, nothing more, but still deliver needed 
services over unicast and multicast.


So as soon as the design contains any of the words L2TP, PPPoE/A, ATM, 
POS, OC-whatever, xPON or anything like it, you're incurring unneccessary 
cost, especially for high bw services.


The most inexpensive device to L3-terminate 10GE worth of traffic from a 
few thousand customers is in the few thousand dollar range, what's the 
cost if you want to do the same using L2TP or PPPoE ? What about ATM? I 
don't even know if ATM on OC192/STM64 is even widely available. My guess 
is anyhow that you're not looking at a device that costs at least 5-10x 
the cost.


Designing a fiber plant very much like the traditional copper plant, ie 
aggregating thousands of households in a single pop, and letting anyone 
terminate that fiber, is a very future proof and scalable approach. The 
fiber can be lit up using any technology (active p-t-p ethernet, or PON, 
or whatever is desired), this doesn't have to be chosen at time of 
actually drawing the fiber. Yes, it's a high initial cost but I firmly 
believe that over tens of years of lifetime of the fiber, this cost is 
lower than other solutions.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-07 Thread Scott Helms

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:

 On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:

  The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
 significantly more than a Gig-E card.  Now, as I said there is no advantage
 to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface are not
 significant.


 There has always been a substantial price difference for ATM/POS compared
 to ethernet.


Yes this is true, which is why I specifically limited the scope to a single
ATM interface.


 But when designing ETTH networks, the cost saving is in the use of very
 simple devices. L2/L3 switches all the way. No tunneling, no fancy
 encap/decap Q-in-Q etc. Enough intelligence to do the BCP38 stuff to
 prevent spoofing, MitM-attacks, nothing more, but still deliver needed
 services over unicast and multicast.

 So as soon as the design contains any of the words L2TP, PPPoE/A, ATM,
 POS, OC-whatever, xPON or anything like it, you're incurring unneccessary
 cost, especially for high bw services.


That really depends on how the technology is used, what is already in place
especially on the WAN side, and what OSS the operator already has in place.
 Now, in general for greenfield builds I'd agree except for PON, which is
in many cases cheaper than an Ethernet build.  Cost of the physical pieces
of the network are only one part of the cost of owning and running a
network and over the long run its actually one of the smaller pieces.  Now,
I wouldn't build a PPPoE based network today UNLESS there were significant
reasons that it would be be cheaper for that operator.  The same is true of
ATM, but I'll give you a concrete example of why it sometimes makes sense.
 In areas (and this is usually a rural challenge) there are a limited
number of operators you can buy WAN connectivity from as a local ISP
yourself.  I have customers in Montana and Wyoming especially that have
this challenge where they can either choose to pay for an ATM capable OC12
(622 mbps minus overhead) for a given price per month or a Gig-E connection
for nearly twice the amount of MRC.  In that case it makes much more sense
to pay a 5-6 thousand more for the ATM interface once than to pay ~$1,500
per month more.  This also takes into consideration that their current
bandwidth requirements are around 300 mbps.




 The most inexpensive device to L3-terminate 10GE worth of traffic from a
 few thousand customers is in the few thousand dollar range, what's the cost
 if you want to do the same using L2TP or PPPoE ? What about ATM? I don't
 even know if ATM on OC192/STM64 is even widely available. My guess is
 anyhow that you're not looking at a device that costs at least 5-10x the
 cost.


There are not generally available OC192 SAR engines.  At the 10 Gig scale
its certainly true that you'll have challenges.



 Designing a fiber plant very much like the traditional copper plant, ie
 aggregating thousands of households in a single pop, and letting anyone
 terminate that fiber, is a very future proof and scalable approach. The
 fiber can be lit up using any technology (active p-t-p ethernet, or PON, or
 whatever is desired), this doesn't have to be chosen at time of actually
 drawing the fiber. Yes, it's a high initial cost but I firmly believe that
 over tens of years of lifetime of the fiber, this cost is lower than other
 solutions.


That has not been demonstrated in the market.  There are lots of people who
say this, generally they're involved in building fiber plants, but in the
US and Canada I've not seen a single report of an actual network where this
was true.  Do you have any documentation to this effect?  I will also
acknowledge that we don't have a large sample size in the US of plants
built this way.




 --
 Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se




-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-07 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson


On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:

That has not been demonstrated in the market.  There are lots of people 
who say this, generally they're involved in building fiber plants, but 
in the US and Canada I've not seen a single report of an actual network 
where this was true.  Do you have any documentation to this effect?  I 
will also acknowledge that we don't have a large sample size in the US 
of plants built this way.


I never said there was installed base for this in north america. I have no 
knowledge of this. But I guess from your question that you wan to limit 
the discussion to what is commercially available today, which is a totally 
different question compared to what is best in the long run.


I know the service exists here in Stockholm, Sweden. Here we don't have 
Telcos who sue municipality networks for providing L1 and L2 services to 
anyone who wants to buy them.


However, the pricing model can still be worked on. Here it costs 
approximately 10 USD per month to rent this fiber from the central plant 
to the customer, meaning ISPs who have a lot of customers in a single 
place still opt to just rent a single operator fiber and then terminate 
the building fiber plant at the curb or in the building, instead of at the 
central (CO) plant when they light up multi-tenant buildings.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-07 Thread Masataka Ohta

Scott Helms wrote:

 Now, in general for greenfield builds I'd agree except for
 PON, which is in many cases cheaper than an Ethernet build.

As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
unless subscriber density is very high.

 I have customers in Montana and Wyoming especially that
 have this challenge where they can either choose to pay
 for an ATM capable OC12 (622 mbps minus overhead) for a
 given price per month or a Gig-E connection for nearly
 twice the amount of MRC.

Obviously, the solution is IP over SONET.

 Do you have any documentation to this effect?

In

http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/policyreports/chousa/bb_seibi/pdf/041209_2_14.pdf

you can see 51km cabling with PON costs 232000K JPY, whereas
221km cabling with SS costs 675000K JPY (in Japanese),

For each subscriber, PON cost 311K JPY, whereas SS cost 304K JPY,
even though SS case is about twice less subsrriber density
(28.8 vs 16.2 subscribers/km2).

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-07 Thread Jay Ashworth

- Original Message -
 From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp

 Scott Helms wrote:
  Now, in general for greenfield builds I'd agree except for
  PON, which is in many cases cheaper than an Ethernet build.
 
 As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
 to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
 unless subscriber density is very high.

Oh, ghod; we're not gonna go here, again, are we?

Yes, a PON physical build can be somewhat cheaper, because it multiplexes 
your trunk cabling from 1pr per circuit to as many as 16-32pr per circuit
on the trunk, allowing you to spec smaller cables.

It does, however, limit you to being able to run PON capable L1 protocols
over it, which may have *system*-cost implications over the life of the 
plant.  But yes, the initial install *may* be a bit cheaper (depending
on the tradeoff cost of the splitters vs the larger count fiber and
the reduced size of patching facilities, and the relative cost of the
access multiplexers, and...

Hey, wait!  How did I end up on Scott's side?  :-)

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?

2013-02-07 Thread Jason Baugher

In a greenfield build, cost difference for plant between PON and active
will be negligible for field-based splitters, non-existent for CO-based
splitters.

If the company already has some fiber in the ground, then depending on
where it is might drastically reduce build costs to use field-based
splitters and PON.

On the CO-side electronics, however... I think it's safe to say that you
can do GPON under $100/port. AE is probably going to run close to
$300/port. That's a pretty big cost difference, and if it were me I'd be
looking pretty hard at a PON deployment for the majority of the customers
along with a certain amount of fiber left over for those who need special
services.


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

 - Original Message -
  From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp

  Scott Helms wrote:
   Now, in general for greenfield builds I'd agree except for
   PON, which is in many cases cheaper than an Ethernet build.
 
  As PON require considerably longer drop cable from a splitters
  to 4 or 8 subscribers, it can not be cheaper than Ethernet,
  unless subscriber density is very high.

 Oh, ghod; we're not gonna go here, again, are we?

 Yes, a PON physical build can be somewhat cheaper, because it multiplexes
 your trunk cabling from 1pr per circuit to as many as 16-32pr per circuit
 on the trunk, allowing you to spec smaller cables.

 It does, however, limit you to being able to run PON capable L1 protocols
 over it, which may have *system*-cost implications over the life of the
 plant.  But yes, the initial install *may* be a bit cheaper (depending
 on the tradeoff cost of the splitters vs the larger count fiber and
 the reduced size of patching facilities, and the relative cost of the
 access multiplexers, and...

 Hey, wait!  How did I end up on Scott's side?  :-)

 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?

2013-02-07 Thread Scott Helms

On Feb 7, 2013 12:24 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:

 On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:

 That has not been demonstrated in the market.  There are lots of people
who say this, generally they're involved in building fiber plants, but in
the US and Canada I've not seen a single report of an actual network where
this was true.  Do you have any documentation to this effect?  I will also
acknowledge that we don't have a large sample size in the US of plants
built this way.


 I never said there was installed base for this in north america. I have
no knowledge of this. But I guess from your question that you wan to limit
the discussion to what is commercially available today, which is a totally
different question compared to what is best in the long run.

Not at all, but the problem I have with projected numbers are that they
frequently end up being inaccurate in the long term.  If we model off of
real networks then we have a much greater chance of getting the actual
costs correct.



 I know the service exists here in Stockholm, Sweden. Here we don't have
Telcos who sue municipality networks for providing L1 and L2 services to
anyone who wants to buy them.

The regulatory comment isn't particularly relevant since there in MOST
places in the US muni's are free to do the same thing.  IIRC, there are
only 5 states that significantly restrict munis from building access
networks, though there are another handful that restrict them from offering
specific services.  For example, in Texas a muni may not offer voice
services.



 However, the pricing model can still be worked on. Here it costs
approximately 10 USD per month to rent this fiber from the central plant to
the customer, meaning ISPs who have a lot of customers in a single place
still opt to just rent a single operator fiber and then terminate the
building fiber plant at the curb or in the building, instead of at the
central (CO) plant when they light up multi-tenant buildings.

That $10 price tag is an easy number to toss around and in some builds it
might be accurate, but the costs for the L1 infrastructure vary
tremendously so using it as a guestimation is pretty dangerous.  It may
well be accurate in Stockholm, but its not in much/most of the US.




 --
 Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-07 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson


On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Jason Baugher wrote:

On the CO-side electronics, however... I think it's safe to say that you 
can do GPON under $100/port. AE is probably going to run close to 
$300/port. That's a pretty big cost difference, and if it were me I'd be 
looking pretty hard at a PON deployment for the majority of the 
customers along with a certain amount of fiber left over for those who 
need special services.


How do you come to the $300 per AE port? When I look at it, I get around 
USD100-150 per AE port including SFP.


Also, I expect the customer end to be cheaper for AE than for PON, right?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

 However, for any given ring, you are locked into a single technology and
 you have to put active electronics out in the field.


Correct, but you can have many layer 2 rings riding your physical ring.  In
a normal install you're going to have over a hundred fibers in your
physical ring, I'd personally build it with over two hundred, but that's
just me.

Here's the Graybar catalog with a good breakdown of the kinds of fiber you
can choose from, though you have to have a rep to get pricing:

http://www.graybar.com/documents/graybar-sps-osp.pdf





 You can't, given a ring architecture, provide dark fiber leases.


That's incorrect, you simply don't have as many available but in a current
normal build you could easily provide 100+ dark fiber leases that extend
from your MDF (still don't like using this term here) all the way down to
the home or business.



 I realize it is your argument that one doesn't need to do so, there's no
 market
 for it, etc. However, I don't agree with you.


No, my argument is that the demand for dark fiber is very low and so
building your network so you can provide every single connection as dark
fiber is wasteful.



 Sure, but, you're ring only works with things that do L2 aggregation in the
 field with active electronics in the field. This means that for any L2
 technology
 a particular subscriber wants to use, you need to either already have that
 L2
 technology deployed on a ring, or, you need to deploy another ring to
 support
 that technology.


First, exactly how many and what Layer 2 technologies BESIDES Ethernet do
you think you have a market for?





 VPNs are popular today (whether MPLS, IPSEC, or otherwise) because
 L1 connections are expensive and VPNS are (relatively) cheap.

 If dark fiber can be provided for $30/month per termination (we've already
 agreed that the cost is $20 or less), that changes the equation quite a
 bit.
 If, as a business, I can provide corporate connectivity and internet access
 to my employees for $30/month/employee without having to use a VPN,
 but just 802.1q trunking and providing them a router (or switch) that has
 different ports for Corporate and Personal LANs in their house, that
 changes the equation quite a bit.


First, there are very few businesses in the size town we've been discussing
that even have this scenario as a wish list item.  Second, how many
businesses that need/want remote connectivity for their workers at home
AREN'T running Ethernet on their corporate LAN and at the employees' home?
 Another thing to remember is that many businesses run VPNs because of the
encryption and controls it provides, not because they can't get or afford
direct connectivity.  You have a vanishingly small set of potential
customers IMO.




 Admittedly, this only works for the employees that live within range, but
 it's an example of the kinds of services that nobody even imagines today
 because we can't get good L1 services cheap yet.


This is the key point.  IF someone was able to put together a nationwide or
even regional offering to allow inexpensive Layer 1 connectivity things
would be different.  However, that's not going to happen AND we already
have good cheap solutions to deal with that.  Most commonly VPLS over GRE
or VPN whose only real cost beyond the basic home Internet connection, is a
~$350 CPE that supports the protocol.  So, if you're running a company with
regional or nationwide offices and home workers would you be attracted to a
more limited method of connection that is only available in certain areas
as opposed to the solution that works everywhere?  Which is easier for your
IT staff to support?



 Sure, but elsewhere you've pointed out that the last 20 yards are where
 most
 of the problems occur… Guess what… The last 20 yards should be the service
 provider, not the L1 in this case. If you're worried that the tech will
 blame problems
 in the last 20 yards on the prem. loop, that's a matter of teaching them
 where
 to plug in the box for testing the L1 loop.

 MMR---[B-Box]--[Customer Patch]--[IW Termination]

 1.  Plug into IW Termination
 If it works, great, you're done. If not:

 2.  Plug into Customer Patch.
 If it works, problem is isolated to the IW side of things,
 not the
 muni's responsibility.

 If it doesn't, contact the muni and schedule a joint visit
 to
 troubleshoot. Muni will provide an OTDR. Any
 modulation-specific
 diagnostic gear to be provided by the service provider.

 I'm willing to bet that I could teach this to the average installer in a
 matter
 of minutes.


I'm not gonna argue the troubleshooting point anymore, far be it for me to
deny you the opportunity to hit your own thumb and learn the lesson that
way.



-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Eric Wieling ewiel...@nyigc.com wrote:

 The ILECs basically got large portions of the 1996 telecom reform rules
 gutted via lawsuits.  DSL unbundling was part of this.   See
 http://quello.msu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/wp-05-02.pdf   The ILECs
 already need a DSLAM in each CO and already use ATM PVCs to provide L2
 connectivity from the DSLAM to their IP network, I don't think it is that
 much more expensive to allow other ISPs an ATM PVC into their network.
 ATM may not be the best technology to do this, but the basic concept is not
 bad.  Ethernet VLANs would be another option, as would Frame Relay, as
 would simply DAXing multiple 64k channels from the customer endpoint to the
 ISP if you want more L1 style connectivity.


Generally the way this was done by all of the RBOCs (except Qwest) was via
a L2TP tunnel to hand off the PPPoE/oA tunnel prior to it being
authenticated.  The connections from BellSouth and some of the other
operators was ATM but that was because they didn't want to have to do SAR
on all those frames/cells on their existing gear.




 What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers, I don't care what the
 local loop is.   It could be fiber, twisted pair, coax, or even licensed
 wireless and hand it off to me over a nice fat fiber link with a PVC or
 VLAN or whatever to the customer endpoint.   What I don't want is to have
 to install equipment at each and every CO I want to provide service out of.
  This would be astoundingly expensive for us.


This is what I see most commonly.



 -Original Message-
 From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
 Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:42 PM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

 Eric Wieling wrote:

  In the past the ISP simply needed a nice big ATM pipe to the
  ILEC for DSL service.   The ILEC provided a PVC from the
  customer endpoint to the ISP.  As understand it this is no longer the
  case, but only because of non-technical issues.

 The non-technical issue is *COST*!

 No one considered to use so expensive ATM as L2 for DSL unbundling, at
 least in Japan, which made DSL in Japan quite inexpensive.


AFAIK all ADSL is ATM at layer 2, including Japan.  Did they deploy a
different DSL technology there?



  We currently use XO, Covad, etc to connect to the customer We get a
  fiber connection to them and the provide use L2 connectivity to the
  custom endpoint using an Ethernet VLAN,
  Frame Relay PVC, etc complete with QoS.   I assume XO,
  etc use UNE access to the local loop.   There is no reason
  a Muni can't do something similar.

 Muni can. However, there is no reason Muni can't offer L1 unbundling.

 Masataka Ohta





-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Masataka Ohta 
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:

 Eric Wieling wrote:

  I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other
  ISPs an ATM PVC into their network.

 Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.

  ATM may not be the best technology to do this,

 It is not.


Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real drawback
to using ATM.  There's no particular upside either, but it certainly works
and depending on the gear you're getting your L2TP feed on it may be the
best choice.



  but the basic concept is not bad.

 It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See
 the subject.


Why?


  What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers,

 You may. However, the customers care cost for you to do so, a lot.

 L1 unbundling allows the customers to choose an ISP with best
 (w.r.t. cost, performance, etc.) L2 and L3 technology, whereas
 L2 unbundling allows ILECs choose stupid L2 technologies such
 as ATM or PON, which is locally best for their short term
 revenue, which, in the long run, delays global deployment of
 broadband environment, because of high cost to the customers.

 Masataka Ohta




-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-06 Thread Eric Wieling

Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul their 
DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?

-Original Message-
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Eric Wieling wrote:

 I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other ISPs an 
 ATM PVC into their network.

Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.

 ATM may not be the best technology to do this,

It is not.

 but the basic concept is not bad.

It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See the subject.

 What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers,

You may. However, the customers care cost for you to do so, a lot.

L1 unbundling allows the customers to choose an ISP with best (w.r.t. cost, 
performance, etc.) L2 and L3 technology, whereas
L2 unbundling allows ILECs choose stupid L2 technologies such as ATM or PON, 
which is locally best for their short term revenue, which, in the long run, 
delays global deployment of broadband environment, because of high cost to the 
customers.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-06 Thread Jay Ashworth

- Original Message -
 From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com

  However, for any given ring, you are locked into a single technology
  and you have to put active electronics out in the field.
 
 Correct, but you can have many layer 2 rings riding your physical ring. In
 a normal install you're going to have over a hundred fibers in your
 physical ring, I'd personally build it with over two hundred, but
 that's just me.

And I would personally not design something where the physical layout
locks you into a specific *category* of technology (active equipment
in the field), but that's just me.  :-)

 Here's the Graybar catalog with a good breakdown of the kinds of fiber
 you can choose from, though you have to have a rep to get pricing:
 
 http://www.graybar.com/documents/graybar-sps-osp.pdf

Nice reference, added to my list; thanks.

  You can't, given a ring architecture, provide dark fiber leases.
 
 That's incorrect, you simply don't have as many available but in a current
 normal build you could easily provide 100+ dark fiber leases that extend
 from your MDF (still don't like using this term here) all the way down
 to the home or business.

And, conversely, I could, actually, *build a ring atop home run*; it would
just be a folded ring, where the active gear is at the end of each run.

  I realize it is your argument that one doesn't need to do so,
  there's no market for it, etc. However, I don't agree with you.
 
 No, my argument is that the demand for dark fiber is very low and so
 building your network so you can provide every single connection as
 dark fiber is wasteful.

Doing things which are not quite cost effective *yet* is pretty much
the *hallmark* of government, is it not?  Hybrid car tax breaks, Solar
PV install tax breaks... these things are all subsidies to the consumer
cost of a technology, so as to increase its uptake and push it onto the
consumer-cost S-curve; this is a government practice with at least a
century long history.

It's pretty much what I'm trying to accomplish here.  And thanks for
teasing that thought out of my head, so I can make sure it's in my 
internal sales pitch. :-)

 First, exactly how many and what Layer 2 technologies BESIDES Ethernet
 do you think you have a market for?

GPON/DOCSIS/RFoG?  That's one people are deploying today.

Over the 50 year proposed lifetime of the plant?  WTF knows.  That's 
exactly the point.

To paraphrase Tom Peters, you don't look like a trailbreaker by
*emulating what other trailbreakers have done*.

I'm not *trying* to do the last thing.

I'm trying to do the next thing.  Or maybe the one after that.

 First, there are very few businesses in the size town we've been discussing
 that even have this scenario as a wish list item. 

...now.

   Second, how many
 businesses that need/want remote connectivity for their workers at home
 AREN'T running Ethernet on their corporate LAN and at the employees' home?

Course they are.

 Another thing to remember is that many businesses run VPNs because of the
 encryption and controls it provides, not because they can't get or afford
 direct connectivity. You have a vanishingly small set of potential
 customers IMO.

Perhaps.  But the *current* potential customer base does not merit 
locking in a limited design in a 50-year plant build.

  Admittedly, this only works for the employees that live within range, but
  it's an example of the kinds of services that nobody even imagines today
  because we can't get good L1 services cheap yet.
 
 This is the key point. IF someone was able to put together a nationwide or
 even regional offering to allow inexpensive Layer 1 connectivity things
 would be different. 

How, Scott, would you expect that sort of thing might happen?

By people taking the first step?

Yeah; thought so.

My county doesn't have the same first-trencher advantage my city does...
but it does have the advantage that *it is nearly 100% built out as well*;
we are, I believe, the densest county *in the United States*; maybe 
Manhattan beats us.  Maybe DC; maybe Suffolk County in Mass.

So it's not at all impossible that we might be the first domino to fall;
there are a lot of barrier island communities near me that would be similarly
easy to fiber, since they're so one-dimensional.

(Geographically; I'm sure their residents are quite nice. :-)

  However, that's not going to happen AND we already
 have good cheap solutions to deal with that. Most commonly VPLS over GRE
 or VPN whose only real cost beyond the basic home Internet connection,
 is a ~$350 CPE that supports the protocol. 

You're paying $350 for VPN routers?

Could I be one of your vendors?

   So, if you're running a company
 with regional or nationwide offices and home workers would you be attracted
 to a more limited method of connection that is only available in certain
 areas as opposed to the solution

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Eric Wieling ewiel...@nyigc.com wrote:

 Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul
 their DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?


In the independent space this has been Ethernet for a very long time.  In
the RBOC space its taken longer, but my understanding is that they have
also switched most of their connections.  The only exceptions to this I am
aware of are those ATT and Verizon territories that are still limited to
g.lite (1.5 mbps) ADSL.




 -Original Message-
 From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

 Eric Wieling wrote:

  I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other ISPs an
  ATM PVC into their network.

 Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.

  ATM may not be the best technology to do this,

 It is not.

  but the basic concept is not bad.

 It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See the subject.

  What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers,

 You may. However, the customers care cost for you to do so, a lot.

 L1 unbundling allows the customers to choose an ISP with best (w.r.t.
 cost, performance, etc.) L2 and L3 technology, whereas
 L2 unbundling allows ILECs choose stupid L2 technologies such as ATM or
 PON, which is locally best for their short term revenue, which, in the long
 run, delays global deployment of broadband environment, because of high
 cost to the customers.

 Masataka Ohta





-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

 
  That's incorrect, you simply don't have as many available but in a
 current
  normal build you could easily provide 100+ dark fiber leases that
 extend
  from your MDF (still don't like using this term here) all the way down
  to the home or business.

 And, conversely, I could, actually, *build a ring atop home run*; it would
 just be a folded ring, where the active gear is at the end of each run.


Yep, that's likely what will happen over the long term anyhow.  That's why
I asked about a new apartment building in your territory.  You decision
would be either run additional fiber to support each apartment as an end
point, simply provide backhaul  to some other provider, or put your own
actives somewhere nearby.


   I realize it is your argument that one doesn't need to do so,
   there's no market for it, etc. However, I don't agree with you.
 
  No, my argument is that the demand for dark fiber is very low and so
  building your network so you can provide every single connection as
  dark fiber is wasteful.

 Doing things which are not quite cost effective *yet* is pretty much
 the *hallmark* of government, is it not?  Hybrid car tax breaks, Solar
 PV install tax breaks... these things are all subsidies to the consumer
 cost of a technology, so as to increase its uptake and push it onto the
 consumer-cost S-curve; this is a government practice with at least a
 century long history.

 It's pretty much what I'm trying to accomplish here.  And thanks for
 teasing that thought out of my head, so I can make sure it's in my
 internal sales pitch. :-)


All of those items have some chance of mass deployment.  Mass deployment of
Layer 1 connectivity in the US is much *much *less likely.



  First, exactly how many and what Layer 2 technologies BESIDES Ethernet
  do you think you have a market for?

 GPON/DOCSIS/RFoG?  That's one people are deploying today.


That question was in reference to commercial accounts not service providers.



 Over the 50 year proposed lifetime of the plant?  WTF knows.  That's
 exactly the point.

 To paraphrase Tom Peters, you don't look like a trailbreaker by
 *emulating what other trailbreakers have done*.

 I'm not *trying* to do the last thing.

 I'm trying to do the next thing.  Or maybe the one after that.

  First, there are very few businesses in the size town we've been
 discussing
  that even have this scenario as a wish list item.

 ...now.

Second, how many
  businesses that need/want remote connectivity for their workers at home
  AREN'T running Ethernet on their corporate LAN and at the employees'
 home?

 Course they are.

  Another thing to remember is that many businesses run VPNs because of the
  encryption and controls it provides, not because they can't get or afford
  direct connectivity. You have a vanishingly small set of potential
  customers IMO.

 Perhaps.  But the *current* potential customer base does not merit
 locking in a limited design in a 50-year plant build.


That's a business call, but like a lot of decisions you're making a ton of
assumptions as well.  You're assuming for example that the costs of running
additional fibers won't go down significantly during that 50 year time
span.  You're assuming that the cost of DWDM gear won't go down
sufficiently that running new fiber is simply not needed to support the
new architecture.  You're also assuming that Layer 1 will at some point
have a reason for customer adoption when the entire world is working on
Layer 3 methods of doing this.



   Admittedly, this only works for the employees that live within range,
 but
   it's an example of the kinds of services that nobody even imagines
 today
   because we can't get good L1 services cheap yet.
 
  This is the key point. IF someone was able to put together a nationwide
 or
  even regional offering to allow inexpensive Layer 1 connectivity things
  would be different.

 How, Scott, would you expect that sort of thing might happen?

 By people taking the first step?

 Yeah; thought so.


There are more first steps that are never followed up than people
actually starting a trend.  There is a guy in my neighborhood that swears
we can all drive around in cars powered by recycled frying oil and he built
one to prove it works.  I should point out that your idea is not new nor
are you the first to try to build something like this.



 My county doesn't have the same first-trencher advantage my city does...
 but it does have the advantage that *it is nearly 100% built out as well*;
 we are, I believe, the densest county *in the United States*; maybe
 Manhattan beats us.  Maybe DC; maybe Suffolk County in Mass.

 So it's not at all impossible that we might be the first domino to fall;
 there are a lot of barrier island communities near me that would be
 similarly
 easy to fiber, since they're so one-dimensional.

 (Geographically; I'm sure their residents are quite nice. :-)


Today there are networks

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-06 Thread Benny Amorsen

Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:

 GPON/DOCSIS/RFoG?  That's one people are deploying today.

 Over the 50 year proposed lifetime of the plant?  WTF knows.  That's 
 exactly the point.

 To paraphrase Tom Peters, you don't look like a trailbreaker by
 *emulating what other trailbreakers have done*.

 I'm not *trying* to do the last thing.

 I'm trying to do the next thing.  Or maybe the one after that.

The existing copper network was in many cases built like a star with
some very long runs. This worked fine for telephony, but not so well
with ADSL. The result is that providers move their active equipment
closer to the subscriber.

Is there a risk that up-and-coming technologies will depend on shorter
fiber runs? Will the fiber be built in such a way that it joins up in
places where it is possible to later add active equipment if that
becomes desirable?



/Benny

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-06 Thread Jay Ashworth

- Original Message -
 From: Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk

  I'm not *trying* to do the last thing.
 
  I'm trying to do the next thing. Or maybe the one after that.
 
 The existing copper network was in many cases built like a star with
 some very long runs. This worked fine for telephony, but not so well
 with ADSL. The result is that providers move their active equipment
 closer to the subscriber.

Well, it worked poorly with ADSL *because* it actually worked poorly
with voice, and they had to put load coils in to fix it.

 Is there a risk that up-and-coming technologies will depend on shorter
 fiber runs? Will the fiber be built in such a way that it joins up in
 places where it is possible to later add active equipment if that
 becomes desirable?

I think that risk low enough to take it, especially since my entire
city fits in about a 3mi radius.  :-)

No, I expect ranges to get *longer* per constant dollar spent, actually.

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?


 I think that risk low enough to take it, especially since my entire
 city fits in about a 3mi radius.  :-)


This is data I'd like to have had earlier, if your total diameter is 6
miles then the math will almost certainly work to home run everything,
though I'd still run the numbers.



 No, I expect ranges to get *longer* per constant dollar spent, actually.



Are you legally or otherwise restricted from extending beyond the city
limits in your state?



 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




-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-06 Thread Jay Ashworth

- Original Message -
 From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com

 Yep, that's likely what will happen over the long term anyhow. That's why
 I asked about a new apartment building in your territory. You decision
 would be either run additional fiber to support each apartment as an
 end point, simply provide backhaul to some other provider, or put your own
 actives somewhere nearby.

In fact, there is *one* large multiunit in my city, and I don't believe 
that there is space for anymore; my CO location is *right across the street
from that*. :-)

If someone *does* want to put another in, they will have to pay for me to 
pull the new fiber to their lot; that's how we do it with other utilities.

  Doing things which are not quite cost effective *yet* is pretty much
  the *hallmark* of government, is it not? Hybrid car tax breaks, Solar
  PV install tax breaks... these things are all subsidies to the consumer
  cost of a technology, so as to increase its uptake and push it onto
  the consumer-cost S-curve; this is a government practice with at least a
  century long history.
 
  It's pretty much what I'm trying to accomplish here. And thanks for
  teasing that thought out of my head, so I can make sure it's in my
  internal sales pitch. :-)
 
 All of those items have some chance of mass deployment. Mass deployment of
 Layer 1 connectivity in the US is much *much *less likely.

For the about 19th time: *that isn't my goal*.  My goal is not limiting
future technology developments of deployment.  Homerun fiber merely happens
to have L1 access to providers as a side benefit.

   First, exactly how many and what Layer 2 technologies BESIDES
   Ethernet
   do you think you have a market for?
 
  GPON/DOCSIS/RFoG? That's one people are deploying today.
 
 That question was in reference to commercial accounts not service
 providers.

I'm glad you want to limit the question, but I don't.

  Perhaps. But the *current* potential customer base does not merit
  locking in a limited design in a 50-year plant build.

 That's a business call, but like a lot of decisions you're making a ton of
 assumptions as well. You're assuming for example that the costs of running
 additional fibers won't go down significantly during that 50 year time
 span. 

Sure I am.  Do you really expect that we'll find an appreciably cheaper
method than directional-bore-and-blow?

More to the point, the -blow part of that, since I'll be over-provisioning
the conduit.

   You're assuming that the cost of DWDM gear won't go down
 sufficiently that running new fiber is simply not needed to support the
 new architecture. 

Which seems the opposite argument.

You're also assuming that Layer 1 will at some point
 have a reason for customer adoption when the entire world is working
 on Layer 3 methods of doing this.

Perhaps.  

But Juan Moore-Thyme: The extra cost of the plant build is somewhere between 
delta and epsilon; it *barely* even merits the amount of time we've burned
up talking about it.

I *can* fake loop with a home-run build, the converse is -- so far as I
can see -- not true; loop builds *require* powered active equipment in
the field, and I have half a dozen reasons to *really not want that a lot*.


   This is the key point. IF someone was able to put together a nationwide
   or even regional offering to allow inexpensive Layer 1 connectivity
   things would be different.
 
  How, Scott, would you expect that sort of thing might happen?
 
  By people taking the first step?
 
  Yeah; thought so.
 
 There are more first steps that are never followed up than people
 actually starting a trend. There is a guy in my neighborhood that swears
 we can all drive around in cars powered by recycled frying oil and he
 built one to prove it works. I should point out that your idea is not new
 nor are you the first to try to build something like this.

Good, then there should be lots of examples, successful *by their terms*
or not, at which I can look.

  My county doesn't have the same first-trencher advantage my city
  does...
  but it does have the advantage that *it is nearly 100% built out as
  well*;
  we are, I believe, the densest county *in the United States*; maybe
  Manhattan beats us. Maybe DC; maybe Suffolk County in Mass.
 
  So it's not at all impossible that we might be the first domino to fall;
  there are a lot of barrier island communities near me that would be
  similarly easy to fiber, since they're so one-dimensional.
 
  (Geographically; I'm sure their residents are quite nice. :-)
 
 Today there are networks based on this premise in every state I've cared to
 check. 

There are a lot of premises in this conversation; exactly which part did
you mean?

  Here in Georgia the independent phone companies formed a seperate
 organization called US Carrier (which was recently sold for much less than
 they put into it). The muni's formed a partnering (initially) network
 called MEAG that was later

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-06 10:16, Eric Wieling wrote:
 Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul their 
 DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?


In Bell Canada Territory, wholesale traffic between DSLAM and BAS/BRAS
travels normally.

The BAS establishes the PPPoE session with end user. When the PAP/CHAp
authentication requests arrive, the BAS sees that it has a realm that
belongs to ISP-X and declares that all packets in that PPPoE session
should be forwarded to ISP-x from now on.

The BAS establises an L2TP tunnel to and IP address that belongs to
ISP-X.  This tunnel travels through Bell Canada's aggregation network to
a router near the ISP's own facilities. There, the L2TP continues on a
GigE link to the ISP's incumbent facing router.

ISP gets PPPoE packets encapsulated in L2TP. It is responsible for
responding to the authentication request, and if positive, providing IP
address/dns/router/etc via IPCP.

Note that incumbents have been telling the CRTC for years that gigE was
the latest and greatest and couldn't do better. Some ISPs require a
large number of gigE links to handle the load. The CRTC last year
mandated incumbenst learn about the less old 10gigE technology and
provide it to ISPs who need it.  Bell Canada has yet to comply. But some
cable incumbents have complied.

In this scenario, there is an ISP of record for the DSL last mile. That
ISP gets billed for the monthly fees for the DSL last mile. (roughly
$20). However, the end user can establish a PPPoE session with another
ISP if he has valid credentials with that other ISP.

When a user formally switches ISP, Bell Canada only needs to change the
ISP of record attached to the phone line so the old ISP is no longer
billed for it and the new ISP is.  The user can start using the new ISP
as soon as his credentials with the new ISP are setup.


Bell canada also offers a non PPPoE service (it calls HSA). However, it
is priced to dissuade use. This trafic is in a PVC between the modem and
the ISP and not switched by a BAS.  I believe Bell uses VLANs to funnel
traffic into the link leading to the ISP.  (not sure if L2TP is involved).

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Scott Helms wrote:

 Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real drawback
 to using ATM.

High cost is the real drawback.

 but the basic concept is not bad.

 It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See
 the subject.

 Why?

Because, for competing ISPs with considerable share, L1
unbundling costs less.

They can just have routers, switches and DSL modems in
collocation spaces of COs, without L2TP or PPPoE, which
means they can eliminate cost for L2TP or PPPoE.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Masataka Ohta 
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:

 Scott Helms wrote:

  Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real
 drawback
  to using ATM.

 High cost is the real drawback.


The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
significantly more than a Gig-E card.  Now, as I said there is no advantage
to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface are not
significant.



  but the basic concept is not bad.
 
  It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See
  the subject.

  Why?

 Because, for competing ISPs with considerable share, L1
 unbundling costs less.

 They can just have routers, switches and DSL modems in
 collocation spaces of COs, without L2TP or PPPoE, which
 means they can eliminate cost for L2TP or PPPoE.


You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers right?
 You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only open
access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe.



 Masataka Ohta




-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-06 16:53, Scott Helms wrote:

 You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers right?
  You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only open
 access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe.

Actually, there is a cost. In lower end Juniper routers, when you
combine both L2TP and PPPoE, the total performance of the LNS router
drops significantly because the interface cards can't do both at same
time so the traffic must travel the backpane to the CPU/auxiliary
processor for the second step.

(at the LAC level, there is less overhead because PPPoE packets are just
passed to the L2TP side, but at LNS, PPPoE packets have to be processed).


Apparently, Juniper has worked to reduce this performance penalty in
newer routers. But routers such as the ERX310 suffered from this quite a
bit. (throughput of about 1.5mbps from what I have been told).

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jean,

Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that
PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any
other technology I'm aware of (anyone else have ideas?) in North America
and Europe.  I'd also say that the ERX is an EOL box, but that doesn't
invalidate your point, that's not a good platform for the LNS side.


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei 
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:

 On 13-02-06 16:53, Scott Helms wrote:

  You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers
 right?
   You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only
 open
  access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe.

 Actually, there is a cost. In lower end Juniper routers, when you
 combine both L2TP and PPPoE, the total performance of the LNS router
 drops significantly because the interface cards can't do both at same
 time so the traffic must travel the backpane to the CPU/auxiliary
 processor for the second step.

 (at the LAC level, there is less overhead because PPPoE packets are just
 passed to the L2TP side, but at LNS, PPPoE packets have to be processed).


 Apparently, Juniper has worked to reduce this performance penalty in
 newer routers. But routers such as the ERX310 suffered from this quite a
 bit. (throughput of about 1.5mbps from what I have been told).




-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Scott Helms wrote:

 The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
 significantly more than a Gig-E card.  Now, as I said there is no advantage
 to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface are not
 significant.

You miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple modems.

 Because, for competing ISPs with considerable share, L1
 unbundling costs less.

 They can just have routers, switches and DSL modems in
 collocation spaces of COs, without L2TP or PPPoE, which
 means they can eliminate cost for L2TP or PPPoE.

 You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers right?

Who, do you think, operate the network between LAC and LNS?

The largest DSL operator in Japan directly connect their routers
in COs with dark fibers to form there IP backbone. There is no
LAC nor LNS.

 You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only open
 access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe.

At least in France, fiber is regulated to be open access at L1
much better than poor alternative of L2 unbundlinga as
Jerome Nicolle wrote:

 Smaller ISPs usually go for L2 services, provided by the
 infrastructure operator or another ISP already present on
 site. But some tends to stick to L1 service and deply
 their own eqipments for many reasons.


Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Masataka Ohta 
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:

 Scott Helms wrote:

  The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
  significantly more than a Gig-E card.  Now, as I said there is no
 advantage
  to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface are not
  significant.

 You miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple modems.


No, because that's not required with PPPoE.  Remember, you can easily
encapsulate PPPoE frames inside ATM but encapsulating PPPoA frames inside
Ethernet is problematic (though I have to admit not remembering why its
problematic).  Most PPPoE L2TP setups have no ATM besides the default PVC
between the modem and the DSLAM.  My point was if you need to have an ATM
circuit from the LEC to carry the L2TP traffic (usually because they
haven't upgraded their LAC) its not that big of a deal.



  Because, for competing ISPs with considerable share, L1
  unbundling costs less.
 
  They can just have routers, switches and DSL modems in
  collocation spaces of COs, without L2TP or PPPoE, which
  means they can eliminate cost for L2TP or PPPoE.

  You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers
 right?

 Who, do you think, operate the network between LAC and LNS?


Most often the the LAC and the LNS are directly connected (from an IP
standpoint) for purposes of PPPoE termination.



 The largest DSL operator in Japan directly connect their routers
 in COs with dark fibers to form there IP backbone. There is no
 LAC nor LNS.


OK, that's great but that neither makes it right nor wrong.  The largest
DSL provider in the US (ATT) does it how I've described and that again
doesn't make it right or wrong.


  You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only open
  access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe.

 At least in France, fiber is regulated to be open access at L1
 much better than poor alternative of L2 unbundlinga as
 Jerome Nicolle wrote:

  Smaller ISPs usually go for L2 services, provided by the
  infrastructure operator or another ISP already present on
  site. But some tends to stick to L1 service and deply
  their own eqipments for many reasons.


Again, that's neither right nor wrong.  We do lots of things because of
regulations.  I don't believe (could be wrong) that most of the people in
this conversation have the same problems or solutions as the tier 1
operators.  Its simply a different world and despite your belief L2
unbundling is not a poor alternative.



 Masataka Ohta




-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jerome Nicolle wrote:

 In non-dense areas, zone operators have to build concentration points
 (kind of MMRs) for at least 300 residences (when chaining MMRs) or 1000
 residences (for a single MMR per zone). Theses MMRs often take the form
 of street cabinets or shelters and have to be equiped with power and
 cooling units to enable any ISP yo install active equipments (either OLT
 or ethernet switch).

How is the wiring between the concentration points and residences?

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-06 17:12, Scott Helms wrote:
 Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that
 PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any
 other technology I'm aware of

By default, Telus in western Canada has deployed ethernet based DSL for
wholesale, although PPPoE is available. Its own customers are ethernet
based wth DHCP service.

Some of the ISPs have chosen PPPoE since it makes it easier to do usage
accounting at the router (since packets are already asscoated with the
PPPoE session account).

The difference is that Telus had purchased/developed software that made
it easy to change the PVC to point a user to one ISP or the other, so
changing ISPs is relatively painless. Bell Canada decided to abandon
etyernet based DSL and go PPPoE because it didn't want to develop that
software.

Bell is deploying PPPoE for its FTTH (which is not *yet) available to
wholesalers, something I am hoping to help change in the coming months)


However, the australian NBN model is far superior because it enables far
more flexibility such as multicasting etc. PPPoE is useless overhead if
you have the right management tools to point a customer to his ISP. (and
it also means that the wholesale infrastructure can be switch based
intead of router based).

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

 However, the australian NBN model is far superior because it enables far
 more flexibility such as multicasting etc. PPPoE is useless overhead if
 you have the right management tools to point a customer to his ISP. (and
 it also means that the wholesale infrastructure can be switch based
 intead of router based).


I'd agree.  Its a better way of doing L2 unbundling than PPPoE.  Its just
PPPoE had the sharing concept baked into it so it was easy for most
operators to use historically.



-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-06 18:11, Scott Helms wrote:

 I'd agree.  Its a better way of doing L2 unbundling than PPPoE.  Its just
 PPPoE had the sharing concept baked into it so it was easy for most
 operators to use historically.


PPPoE has its roots in the dialup days. So Incumbents were more than
happy to be able to use existing radius servers to autenticate DSL
customers.

And PPPoE dates from a time when ethernet routing didn't really exist.
With current ethernet technologies such as VLANs and ethernet
encapsulation, if someone is looking at building something from scratch
(such as a minicipal network), there shouldn't be incentive to adopt
older technologies that provide less flexibility.

If you provide L2 ethernet service, it doesn't prevent an ISP from
providing PPPoE over it.

RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

2013-02-06 Thread Eric Wieling

Putting routers and DLAMs each CO is simply not affordable for any but the 
largest providers like XO.I expect Japan with its compact population 
centers may be different, but in the USA there are not enough people connected 
to any but the largest COs to make it affordable.I'm not stuck on using ATM 
(I used it only as an example), any L2 technology will work.   One of our 
providers uses an Ethernet VLAN per customer endpoint and hands off bunches of 
VLANs to us over fiber. 

-Original Message-
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:48 PM
To: Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Scott Helms wrote:

 Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real 
 drawback to using ATM.

High cost is the real drawback.

 but the basic concept is not bad.

 It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See the 
 subject.

 Why?

Because, for competing ISPs with considerable share, L1 unbundling costs less.

They can just have routers, switches and DSL modems in collocation spaces of 
COs, without L2TP or PPPoE, which means they can eliminate cost for L2TP or 
PPPoE.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?