Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my assessment is correct or not... Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner?
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Feb 1, 2013, at 22:54, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: If you have multicast and everyone is watching superbowl at same time, you're talking up very little bandwidth on that 2.mumble GPON link. Meh. Since everyone seems to want to be able to pause, rewind, etc., multicast doesn't tend to happen so much even in the IPTV world these days. Most of the time this is handled with a sliding buffer on the DVR at the customer prem (TiVo time shifting style) unless you're talking VOD. On Feb 1, 2013, at 19:44, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: My limited understanding is that fiber really has two parameters, loss and modal disperson. For most of the applications folks on this mailing list deal with loss is the big issue, and modal disperson is something that can be ignored. However for for many of the more interesting applications involving splitters, super long distances, or passive amplifiers modal disperson is actually a much larger issue. I would imagine if you put X light into a 32:1 splitter, each leg would leg 1/32nd of the light (acutally a bit less, no doubt), but I have an inking the disperson characteristics would be much, much worse. Is this the cause of the shorter distance on the downstream GPON channel, or does it have to do more with the upstream GPON channel, which is an odd kettle of fish going through a splitter backwards? If it is the issue, have any vendors tried disperson compensation with any success? I'd expect dispersion to be dispersion, in my limited optical education I've only heard that this is influenced by distance, not power level, so the signal would disperse the same amount whether its 7km of trunk + 100m of drop, or 100m of trunk + 7km of drop. 1310 and 1410 aren't particularly close so no need to worry about CMD causing cross channel interference. Quick googling shows this isn't an issue in 2.5G GPON plants which have an 16000ps-nm CMD tolerance, but 10G (XGPON or whatever the latest name is) will only have an 1100ps-nm tolerance which might add up fast depending on the fiber in the ground (Anyone have any good references on common fiber CMD/PMD at different wavelengths? Most of the references I found were focused around 1550) How the receiver in a GPON would respond to rapidly shifting dispersion/power levels due to upstream TDMA isn't something I'm familiar with. You could compensate for the power level with attenuators, but if you needed DC on every customer that's going to get expensive quick unless you can do it on the trunk side just to get the worst offenders back into your receivers window. ~Matt
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
- Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca On 13-02-01 22:52, Owen DeLong wrote: Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal greenfield plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Not so irrelevant. If the municipality wishes to attract as many competitive ISPs as possible, it wants to build a standard last mile that ISPs can easily interface to. One which is compatible with other FTTH systems. Currently, the standard is GPON (even though there are many variations to the theme). There is a certain amount of utility to the we should provide something which incoming providers who are already revved up in a specific direction can work with easily argument, yes. Assuming there really are no loss or dispersal problems with 'splitter at the MDF', this will serve; an incoming L3 provider would have to put the boxes in slightly different places than usual, but at least they'd be the same boxes. Sone may say that having L1 service with each ISP having their OLT with splitters at the CO is an advantage. It also means that each ISP has to have its own ONTs in homes and they can all choose different configs for OLTs and the light in the fibre. Greater flexibility to differentiate between ISPs. (one may choose RFoG for TV with DOCSIS for data while the other is an all data link with IPTV.) Correct; we say that. But for an end user, switching ISPs would mean switching the CPE equipment too since the ONT installed by ISP-1 may not be compatible with OLT used by ISP-2. Sure, but that's already true, and that's not a problem I'm trying to optimize out, frankly. Requiring an ISP to have its own OLT at the CO with its own splitter also raises startup costs and reduces the chances of having competitive ISP environment. See below. Providing L2 service means that ISPs connect to a municipal OLT, so they do not have to purchase OLTs and bother with splitters. At that point, it si simpler and cheaper to deploy splitters in neighbouhoods. It also reduces number of splices. Yes, and no, in that order. If you'd been following along all week, you would have seen that the OP (me :-) wants to do *both*; supply L1 service to providers or subscribers that want that, and L2 service for other providers who are willing to pay more per sub per month, but have less capital investment up front. When you do 1:1, you may have a big cable with lots of strands leaving the CO, but you'll have a JWI in neighbouhood where you cross connect the strands from CO to the strand that uses the pre-fab cable to the backyards of homes served. Sure. Just no splitter. So in all the calculations made on dB loss, the number of splices was not factored in. You're not going to get a continuous cable from the CO to the telephone pole behind a home. If you put the splitter at the CO you get the losses from the splitter, and then losses from a splice at the neighbouhood where trunk from CO connects to cables that runs through backyards. True. Why I'll be subbing the plant design to a company that does that every day of the year, instead of trying to do it myself. When you put the splitter in the neighbouhood, it performs both the splitting and the connection of the cable from CO to the backyards. So you eliminate one splice. Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1 provider, and putting splitters *in the outside plant* precludes any other type of L1 service, *ever*. So that's a non-starter. 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: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk (iname.com) wrote: What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. I must be missing something here. Why would a triple play using IPTV and VOIP be unachievable in this model? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk (iname.com) wrote: What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. I must be missing something here. Why would a triple play using IPTV and VOIP be unachievable in this model? Available Providers. The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company? 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: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Available Providers. The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company? I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from providing those services. Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. If rural telco in Alabama or Mississippi can deliver triple play, surely a larger provider somewhere like NYC can do as well, no? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Available Providers. The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company? I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from providing those services. That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with Ethernet provider hand-off, and nothing at any higher layers. Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. If rural telco in Alabama or Mississippi can deliver triple play, surely a larger provider somewhere like NYC can do as well, no? Well, I ain't no NYC, but... :-) 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?
On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my assessment is correct or not... Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner? Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a flexible L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low barrier to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services. Owen
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Perhaps I missed a reference to receiver sensitivity in this thread. Since the receiver optical-electric components are binary in nature, received optical dB only has to be equal to or greater than the receiver's sensitivity. Low or high dB received light produces the same quality at the receiver. Thus, dB loss can be extensive due to factors such as attenuation, splices, dispersal, but as long as the received dB level is equal to the receiver sensitivity, it doesn't matter how much launched dB is lost. Is the point that splitters reduce the effective distance from the launch point in the PON architecture? David On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:17 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-02-01 16:03, Jason Baugher wrote: The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not technical. It also has to do with existing fibre infrastructure. If a Telco has already adopted a fibre to a node philosophy, then it has a;ready installed a limited number of strands between CO and many neighbouhoods. Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal greenfield plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It makes sense to standardise on one technology. And if that technology, because it is used by many, ends up much cheaper due to economies of scale, it makes sense to adopt it. Only if you're a single vendor looking to provide a single-vendor solution. That's really not what this conversation is about, IMHO. In fact, that's a pretty good summary of the situation we're trying to fix. And remember that it isn't just the cable. You need to consider the OLT cards. An OLT card can often support a few GPON systems each passing 32 homes. Not sure why this matters... With 1 strand per home, you take up one port per home served. (possibly per home passed depending on deployment philosophy). So you end up needing far more cards in an OLT to serve the same number of people. More $$$ needed. Uh, no... That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about still using splitters, but, putting the splitter next to the OLT instead of near the ONT end. That's all. GPON isn't suited for trunks. But for last mile, is it really so bad ? Yes... Because... 2.mumble gpbs of capacity for 32 homes yields 62mbps of sustained download for each home. (assuming you have 32 homes conected and using it at same time) Great by todays standards, but likely to be obsoleted within 10 years. Given the nearly 100 year old nature of some copper plants, I'd like to see us start building fiber plants in a way that doesn't lock us into a particular technology choice constrained to the economic tradeoffs that are relevant today and may be completely different in as little as 5 years. If you have multicast and everyone is watching superbowl at same time, you're talking up very little bandwidth on that 2.mumble GPON link. Meh. Since everyone seems to want to be able to pause, rewind, etc., multicast doesn't tend to happen so much even in the IPTV world these days. Owen
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On 2/2/13 9:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from providing those services. That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with Ethernet provider hand-off, and nothing at any higher layers. The L0 (ROW, poles conduits) provider, and in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider, aka City is also a consumer of City 2 City service above L2, and is also a consumer of City 2 Subscriber services above L2. Creating the better platform for competitive access to the City's L(option(s)) infrastructure must not prelude City as a provider. Eric
Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Ok, here's a rough plan assembled from everyone's helpful contributions and arguing all week, based on the City with which, if I'm lucky, I might get a job Sometime Soon. :-) (I'm sure some of you can speculate which city it might be, but Please Don't.) It's about 3 square miles, and has about 8000 passings, the majority of which are single or double family residential; a sprinkling of multi-tenant, about a dozen city facilities, and a bunch of retail multi-unit business. Oh, and a college campus, commuter. My goal is to fiber the entire city, with a 3-pr tail on each single-family residence (or unit of a duplex/triplex), and N*1.5 on multi-tenant business buildings, and probably about N*1.1 or so on large multi-unit residences. Empty lots, if we have any, will also get a 3-pr tail, in a box. My plan is for the city to contract out the design and build of the physical plant, with each individual pair home-run to a Master Distributing Frame in a city building. Since the diameter of the city is so small, this can be a single building, and it need not be centrally located -- since we are a coastal city, I want it at the other end. :-) I propose to offer to clients, generally ISP, but also property owner/ renters, L1 connectivity, either between two buildings, or to a properly equipped ISP, and also to equip for and offer L2 aggregated connectivity to ISPs, where the city, instead of the ISP, will provide the necessary CPE termination gear (ONT). The entire L0 fiber build, and all L2 aggregation equipment (except potential GPON splitters mentioned next) will be the property of the City. Assuming that the optical math pans out, we will hang GPON splitter frames in the MDT, and cross connect subscriber ports to the front of them, and the back of them to Provider equipment in an associated colo, in rooms or cages; we'll also probably do this for our L2 subscribers, using our own GPON splitters. Those will then be groomed into Ethernet handoffs for whatever providers want to take it that way, at a higher MRC. Splitters installed for Providers who take L1 handoffs will be their property, though installed in our MDF room. We will do all M-A-C work on the MDF, into which Provider employees will generally not be admitted, at least unescorted, on a daily basis, except in emergencies, for which an extra NRC will be levied. The cost we will charge the Providers, per subscriber, will be a fixed MRC, similar to a 'tariffed' rate, which is published, and all Providers pay the same rate, which is subject by contract to occasional adjustment in either direction, and which is set to recover our costs to provide the service, based on take rates and depreciation periods which I have not yet determined. I'm assuming I can get 30 year depreciation out of the fiber plant with no problems, probably 40... maybe 50 if it's built to high enough standards -- I do not expect passive glass fiber to become obsolete in 50 years. Active equipment, a much shorter period, of course, probably between 4 and 7 years, depending on how far up the S-curve of terminal equipment design it proves that we've already traveled. At the moment, my comparison device is the Calix E7-20, with either 24-port AE or the GPON cards; either 836GE interior ONTs, or their equivalent exterior ones (since the power module has to be inside anyway, I'm not sure you gain that much by putting the ONT outside, but...) My motivation for not doing L3 is that it is said to greatly improve the chances for competition at the ISP level, a fact not yet in evidence. My motivation for not doing GPON in the field is that it's thoroughly impractical to do that in an environment where an unknown number of multiple providers will be competing for the subscribers, and anyway it breaks point to point, which the city will need for itself, and which I want to offer to residents as well. My motivation for doing L2 is that it takes a lost of the front-end cost burden off of potential smaller 'boutique' ISPs specializing in various disciplines (very low cost/lifeline service, very high speed, 'has a big local usenet spool', or what have you); such providers will have to pay (and recover) a higher per-subscriber MRC, in exchange for not having to themselves provision and install GPON splitters and something like a Calix E7 -- such hardware will be installed by the City, and cost-shared; if/when such a provider gets big enough, they can install their own, and we'll cut them over. I propose to take the project to the council for funding and approval having in my pocket a letter of intent from a local 2nd tier ISP of long standing to become our launch provider, with no incentives over the published rates except the guarantee of additional subscribers. My underlying motivation, which is intended to answer any tradeoff queries which I haven't explicitly addresses before this point, is to increase the City's position as being full service (as small as it is, it
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Eric Brunner-Williams brun...@nic-naa.net The L0 (ROW, poles conduits) provider, and in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider, aka City is also a consumer of City 2 City service above L2, and is also a consumer of City 2 Subscriber services above L2. Creating the better platform for competitive access to the City's L(option(s)) infrastructure must not prelude City as a provider. The City will be it's own customer for L1 ptp between our facilities, yes. We will also be a customer of the L1 service to provide the L2 service, and that MRC cost-recovery will be included in the L2 cost. While I realize that we could in turn be a competing L3 provider as a customer of the L1/2 provider, I'm loathe to go there if I'm not actually forced to; even moreso than the L2 bump, that's a *big* increase in labor and hence costs, in addition to which I've been convinced here that potential L3 providers will be less likely not to assume The Fix Is In in that case; the City's L3 provider getting an unfair break. If I can't get an LOI as suggested in the posting I just put up, then we may need to be the provider-of-last-resort, at a higher cost to continue to make coming in and competing as a provider. 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?
On 13-02-02 10:36, Jay Ashworth wrote: Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1 provider, and putting splitters *in the outside plant* precludes any other type of L1 service, *ever*. So that's a non-starter. If you have 4 ISPs, why not put 4 splitters in the neighbourhood ? Individual homes can be hooked to any one of the 4 splitters, and you then only need 4 strands between splitter and CO. I understand that having strands from CO to Homes is superior at the technical point of veiw and gives you more flexibility for different services (including commercial services to a home while the neighbour gets residential services). But if strands from CO to homes is so superior, how come telcos aren't doing it and are using GPON instead ?
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Because telcos specifically want to /discourage/ competition. You're perilously close to trolling, here, sir... -jra Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-02-02 10:36, Jay Ashworth wrote: Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1 provider, and putting splitters *in the outside plant* precludes any other type of L1 service, *ever*. So that's a non-starter. If you have 4 ISPs, why not put 4 splitters in the neighbourhood ? Individual homes can be hooked to any one of the 4 splitters, and you then only need 4 strands between splitter and CO. I understand that having strands from CO to Homes is superior at the technical point of veiw and gives you more flexibility for different services (including commercial services to a home while the neighbour gets residential services). But if strands from CO to homes is so superior, how come telcos aren't doing it and are using GPON instead ? -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, 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. What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? What problem are you tying to solve? On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my assessment is correct or not... Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner? Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a flexible L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low barrier to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services. Owen -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Feb 2, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-02-02 10:36, Jay Ashworth wrote: Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1 provider, and putting splitters *in the outside plant* precludes any other type of L1 service, *ever*. So that's a non-starter. If you have 4 ISPs, why not put 4 splitters in the neighbourhood ? Individual homes can be hooked to any one of the 4 splitters, and you then only need 4 strands between splitter and CO. I understand that having strands from CO to Homes is superior at the technical point of veiw and gives you more flexibility for different services (including commercial services to a home while the neighbour gets residential services). But if strands from CO to homes is so superior, how come telcos aren't doing it and are using GPON instead ? Because Telcos are optimizing for different parameters. They want the cheapest way to provide an adequate solution by today's standards and, where possible, to discourage competition. They want to offer a very small number of very standardized products. GPON with splitters in the neighborhood meet those goals. Hopefully, a city has a somewhat opposite set of goals. To provide a quality infrastructure for many years to come which encourages and supports the development of a vibrant and competitive market for a wide variety of services. Owen
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Why on earth would you do this with PON instead of active Ethernet? What GPON vendor have you found where their technical staff will tell you this is a good architecture for their PON offering? On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Ok, here's a rough plan assembled from everyone's helpful contributions and arguing all week, based on the City with which, if I'm lucky, I might get a job Sometime Soon. :-) (I'm sure some of you can speculate which city it might be, but Please Don't.) It's about 3 square miles, and has about 8000 passings, the majority of which are single or double family residential; a sprinkling of multi-tenant, about a dozen city facilities, and a bunch of retail multi-unit business. Oh, and a college campus, commuter. My goal is to fiber the entire city, with a 3-pr tail on each single-family residence (or unit of a duplex/triplex), and N*1.5 on multi-tenant business buildings, and probably about N*1.1 or so on large multi-unit residences. Empty lots, if we have any, will also get a 3-pr tail, in a box. My plan is for the city to contract out the design and build of the physical plant, with each individual pair home-run to a Master Distributing Frame in a city building. Since the diameter of the city is so small, this can be a single building, and it need not be centrally located -- since we are a coastal city, I want it at the other end. :-) I propose to offer to clients, generally ISP, but also property owner/ renters, L1 connectivity, either between two buildings, or to a properly equipped ISP, and also to equip for and offer L2 aggregated connectivity to ISPs, where the city, instead of the ISP, will provide the necessary CPE termination gear (ONT). The entire L0 fiber build, and all L2 aggregation equipment (except potential GPON splitters mentioned next) will be the property of the City. Assuming that the optical math pans out, we will hang GPON splitter frames in the MDT, and cross connect subscriber ports to the front of them, and the back of them to Provider equipment in an associated colo, in rooms or cages; we'll also probably do this for our L2 subscribers, using our own GPON splitters. Those will then be groomed into Ethernet handoffs for whatever providers want to take it that way, at a higher MRC. Splitters installed for Providers who take L1 handoffs will be their property, though installed in our MDF room. We will do all M-A-C work on the MDF, into which Provider employees will generally not be admitted, at least unescorted, on a daily basis, except in emergencies, for which an extra NRC will be levied. The cost we will charge the Providers, per subscriber, will be a fixed MRC, similar to a 'tariffed' rate, which is published, and all Providers pay the same rate, which is subject by contract to occasional adjustment in either direction, and which is set to recover our costs to provide the service, based on take rates and depreciation periods which I have not yet determined. I'm assuming I can get 30 year depreciation out of the fiber plant with no problems, probably 40... maybe 50 if it's built to high enough standards -- I do not expect passive glass fiber to become obsolete in 50 years. Active equipment, a much shorter period, of course, probably between 4 and 7 years, depending on how far up the S-curve of terminal equipment design it proves that we've already traveled. At the moment, my comparison device is the Calix E7-20, with either 24-port AE or the GPON cards; either 836GE interior ONTs, or their equivalent exterior ones (since the power module has to be inside anyway, I'm not sure you gain that much by putting the ONT outside, but...) My motivation for not doing L3 is that it is said to greatly improve the chances for competition at the ISP level, a fact not yet in evidence. My motivation for not doing GPON in the field is that it's thoroughly impractical to do that in an environment where an unknown number of multiple providers will be competing for the subscribers, and anyway it breaks point to point, which the city will need for itself, and which I want to offer to residents as well. My motivation for doing L2 is that it takes a lost of the front-end cost burden off of potential smaller 'boutique' ISPs specializing in various disciplines (very low cost/lifeline service, very high speed, 'has a big local usenet spool', or what have you); such providers will have to pay (and recover) a higher per-subscriber MRC, in exchange for not having to themselves provision and install GPON splitters and something like a Calix E7 -- such hardware will be installed by the City, and cost-shared; if/when such a provider gets big enough, they can install their own, and we'll cut them over. I propose to take the project to the council for funding and approval having in my pocket a letter of intent from a local 2nd tier ISP of long standing to become
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Out of curiosity, do you have plans for legal battles or anything? There have been some other places attempting or running muni broadband that have resulted in crap like the hilariously named AN ACT TO PROTECT JOBS AND INVESTMENT BY REGULATING LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS bill. Sorry, misclicked, delete the first incomplete email if possible. On 2013-2-3, Jay Ashworth wrote: Ok, here's a rough plan assembled from everyone's helpful contributions and arguing all week, based on the City with which, if I'm lucky, I might get a job Sometime Soon. :-) (I'm sure some of you can speculate which city it might be, but Please Don't.) It's about 3 square miles, and has about 8000 passings, the majority of which are single or double family residential; a sprinkling of multi-tenant, about a dozen city facilities, and a bunch of retail multi-unit business. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRDXLKAAoJEG1+YMkH2Rls1DIH/2sLEp3po8GYQjgJtnSs7wCj jNwKlE8FJzoYgMtJPIv5bpwlHaqGjKfAJGqi8DBnp/WoJJIXmgDf0HLiCSgAnvPX 90tqUWy0J7W31PtqajUAaZKF7NehNo3/N5BQe9RGfGBLu3fvZxJ7Fqd+iKZl389D eOO3IOYapTZvWGkXN80EJBdld2NDYnboiigGGFpViwhu3PP20GxjOE+1ntiOzZ79 mPLaemD3/MK11vYBHpWBptvwHPOE0K8ec3vCxgknhub31LwXzDAv3AfvvxDyl/Ei GeBMg57NuEmgh/AvRaXpfNel6eDurpNGKya4rQYUgJAQ3wOlxIqVa9fsR2ZN1vk= =5/Xm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com Why on earth would you do this with PON instead of active Ethernet? What GPON vendor have you found where their technical staff will tell you this is a good architecture for their PON offering? Asked and answered, Scott; have you been ignoring the threads all week? I'm pretty sure I even answered it in the posting, but just in case: 1) Line cards for the OLT frames appear to be 2 orders of magnitude denser for GPON termination than AE (480 ports per 10U vs 10k ports per 10U in Calix, unless I've badly misunderstood my sources), and 2) GPON is what potential L3 providers large enough to want an optical handoff are generally used to. If someone wants AE, they can certainly have it. (C'mon; miss the *next* turn, too :-) 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: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com 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. What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? What problem are you tying to solve? Well, Scott, assuming you mean ethernet over fiber, then you've just said that it's economically infeasible to deploy the physical layer of precisely the architecture you advocate. I find these conflicting reports most conflicting. As for what problems are you trying to solve, I just itemized that. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Original Message - From: Dylan N dy...@dylannguyen.net Out of curiosity, do you have plans for legal battles or anything? There have been some other places attempting or running muni broadband that have resulted in crap like the hilariously named AN ACT TO PROTECT JOBS AND INVESTMENT BY REGULATING LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS bill. Believe me, budgeting for both legal, and PR to make Verizoumahemany large proprietary carrier look greedy and malign is in my plans, yes. :-) TTBOMK, Florida is not a state where Verizon succeeded in making muni ownership of the phy layer illegal. And since they're on record that a) they were cherrypicking and b) they're done now it shouldn't be too hard to suggest their intentions. 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: Ddos mitigation service
+1 on Dosarrest, not so crazy price, used them before their support is awesome. Used to be called whypigsfly, heard that some of their techniques of mitigation we're used by prolexic as well. I'm not a sales rep. nor will I ever be. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Joseph Chin l-na...@iodi.se wrote: From my personal experience, I am a fan of pure-play DDoS mitigation service providers (e.g. Prolexic, Dosarrest) because they are the least likely to give up on you when things get real difficult. Read the SLA careful to make sure it is fit for your purpose. -Original Message- From: James Thomas [mailto:j...@nimblesec.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:49 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Ddos mitigation service Hi Pierre, Thank you for your interesting note. On 01/02/2013 09:57, Pierre Lamy wrote: The 3 major scrubbing vendors: Prolexic Verisign Akamai IIRC, CloudFlare claims to the same capcity of DDOS mitigation as Prolexic (500gb) and also has a free option with fewer scrubbing features. Do you have experience with it, or is there some other reason to have excluded it from your list? I apologize for my noobish question. Cheers, James -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments Disclaimer: http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Jay, I'm spotty on mailing lists since most of my time is spent building these kinds of networks. 1) Talk to more vendors than just Calix, especially if they're quoting their Ethernet density on the C7. Also, keep in mind that port density may or may not be relevant to your situation since space for muni shelves isn't usually a problem. Port density is much more important if you're deploying in existing telco enclosures but muni networks tend (not universally of course) to reuse existing city infrastructure building to house the nodes of their network. Please note that I am not reccomending against Calix, they're a good solution in many cases, but AE is not a strong point on the C7. The E7 and the B series, which is the old Occam product, is much better than the C7. For that matter I wouldn't consider doing a new build on the C7 since that platform's EoL can't be too far in the future. 2) I have no idea who told you this, but this is completely and utterly incorrect in nationwide terms. If you have a specific layer 3 provder in mind that tells you they want a GPON hand off then that's fine, but ISPs in general don't know what GPON is and have no gear to terminate that kind of connection. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com Why on earth would you do this with PON instead of active Ethernet? What GPON vendor have you found where their technical staff will tell you this is a good architecture for their PON offering? Asked and answered, Scott; have you been ignoring the threads all week? I'm pretty sure I even answered it in the posting, but just in case: 1) Line cards for the OLT frames appear to be 2 orders of magnitude denser for GPON termination than AE (480 ports per 10U vs 10k ports per 10U in Calix, unless I've badly misunderstood my sources), and 2) GPON is what potential L3 providers large enough to want an optical handoff are generally used to. If someone wants AE, they can certainly have it. (C'mon; miss the *next* turn, too :-) 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: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com I'm spotty on mailing lists since most of my time is spent building these kinds of networks. Showoff. :-) 1) Talk to more vendors than just Calix, especially if they're quoting their Ethernet density on the C7. Also, keep in mind that port density may or may not be relevant to your situation since space for muni shelves isn't usually a problem. Port density is much more important if you're deploying in existing telco enclosures but muni networks tend (not universally of course) to reuse existing city infrastructure building to house the nodes of their network. Please note that I am not reccomending against Calix, they're a good solution in many cases, but AE is not a strong point on the C7. The E7 and the B series, which is the old Occam product, is much better than the C7. For that matter I wouldn't consider doing a new build on the C7 since that platform's EoL can't be too far in the future. I hope I said E7; it's what I meant to say. Yes, I wasn't going to stop at Calix; I'm just juggling budgetary type numbers at the moment; I'll have 3 or 4 quotes before I go to press. It's a 36 month project just to beginning of build, at this point, likely. Assuming I get the gig at all. 2) I have no idea who told you this, but this is completely and utterly incorrect in nationwide terms. If you have a specific layer 3 provder in mind that tells you they want a GPON hand off then that's fine, but ISPs in general don't know what GPON is and have no gear to terminate that kind of connection. Other people here, said it. If nothing else, it's certainly what the largest nationwide FTTH provider is provisioning, and I suspect it serves more passings than anything else; possibly than everything else. But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout. 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?
On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Owen, 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. What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? What problem are you tying to solve? Ethernet works just fine in the L1 solution I've proposed, so I'm not sure why you say it isn't economically viable to do so. Owen On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my assessment is correct or not... Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner? Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a flexible L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low barrier to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services. Owen -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
I hope I said E7; it's what I meant to say. Yes, I wasn't going to stop at Calix; I'm just juggling budgetary type numbers at the moment; I'll have 3 or 4 quotes before I go to press. It's a 36 month project just to beginning of build, at this point, likely. Assuming I get the gig at all. The E7 is a good shelf, so that's a decent starting point. I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no other reason but get the best pricing you can. I'd also focus much more on your cost per port than the density since your uptake rate will be driven by economics long before port density and how much space your gear takes becomes an issue. 2) I have no idea who told you this, but this is completely and utterly incorrect in nationwide terms. If you have a specific layer 3 provder in mind that tells you they want a GPON hand off then that's fine, but ISPs in general don't know what GPON is and have no gear to terminate that kind of connection. Other people here, said it. If nothing else, it's certainly what the largest nationwide FTTH provider is provisioning, and I suspect it serves more passings than anything else; possibly than everything else. I'm not sure what you mean by this. The largest PON offering in the US is Verizon's FIOS, but AFAIK they don't interconnect with anyone at layer 2 and their layer 3 fiber connections are either Packet Over SONET, Gig E(most common), or very occasionally still ATM. I have heard of a few instances where they'd buy existing GPON networks but I've never heard of them cross connecting like this even with operators that they do significant business with in other ways. But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout. This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works. 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 -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, Cross connecting at layer 1 is what I'm saying isn't feasible. If you want to simply hand them a fiber then sell dark fiber or DWDM ports but trying to create an architecture around PON or other splitters won't work because PON splitters aren't compatible with other protocols. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Owen, 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. What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? What problem are you tying to solve? Ethernet works just fine in the L1 solution I've proposed, so I'm not sure why you say it isn't economically viable to do so. Owen On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my assessment is correct or not... Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner? Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a flexible L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low barrier to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services. Owen -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567:capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure ATT knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
It seems that you are (deliberately or otherwise) seriously misconstruing what I am saying. I'm saying that if you build an L1 dark fiber system as we have described, the purchasers can use it to deploy Ethernet, PON, or any other technology. I'm not saying it's how I would build out a PON only system. That was never the goal. The goal is to provide a municipal L1 service that can be used by ANY provider for ANY service, or as close to that as possible. To make the offering more attractive to low-budget providers, the system may also incorporate some L2 services. Owen On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Owen, Cross connecting at layer 1 is what I'm saying isn't feasible. If you want to simply hand them a fiber then sell dark fiber or DWDM ports but trying to create an architecture around PON or other splitters won't work because PON splitters aren't compatible with other protocols. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Owen, 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. What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? What problem are you tying to solve? Ethernet works just fine in the L1 solution I've proposed, so I'm not sure why you say it isn't economically viable to do so. Owen On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my assessment is correct or not... Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner? Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a flexible L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low barrier to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services. Owen -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com It's about 3 square miles, and has about 8000 passings, the majority of which are single or double family residential; a sprinkling of multi-tenant, about a dozen city facilities, and a bunch of retail multi-unit business. I was musing, off-list, as to why there isn't a Mad-Lib you can just plug some numbers into and get within, say, 40% or so of your target costs for a given design. Well, http://www.ftthcommunitytoolkit.wikispaces.net isn't it, but it does have a bunch of useful information for this project, looks like. A couple of clarifying points: 1) I had posited GPON as I assumed that was where most of the CATV over FTTH hardware work was, vice FiOS. Turns out there's lots of hardware for IPTV as well, and quite a number of smaller deployments, so apparently that path is easier than I thought. The only difference is cross-connect fiber counts, and possibly some link budget. 2) I was planning to provide an IX switch in my colo, so all my L3 providers could short-circuit traffic to my *other* providers through it, unloading my uplinks. 3) Given that, I suppose I could put Limelight and Akamai racks in there, and couple them to the IX switch as well, policies permitting. 4) Given what a pisser it's going to be to get tags to me on the local backbone loops (about 3 are with 5 miles of my city border), I'm also considering having a 10G or 2 hauled in from each of 2 backbones, and reselling those to my L3 providers (again at cost recovery pricing), while not precluding any provider wanting to haul in their own uplink from doing so. 5) There's a possiblity my college campus may be on I2 (or want to); perhaps I can facilitate that as well -- and possible (again, policies permitting) extend such connections to relevant staff members or students who live in the city) (I'm not as familiar with I2 as I should be). 6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I had gathered, it's still harder than them doing VoIP as part of their own triple-play. 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: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no other reason but get the best pricing you can. I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely, you'll want your neutral layer 2 infrastrcuture to at least support RA-guard and DHCPv6 shield. You might also want/need DHCPv6 PD snooping, MLD snooping. We have found VERY disappointing support for these features in this type of gear. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: 6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I had gathered, it's still harder than them doing VoIP as part of their own triple-play. So you are going to prohibit the operator of the fiber plant from running layer 3 services, but then turn around and let them offer IPTV? That seems quite inconsistent to me. And just because it's hard? Running a decent layer 3 service is hard too. Isn't the whole point to let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and cost of their services? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com It's about 3 square miles, and has about 8000 passings, the majority of which are single or double family residential; a sprinkling of multi-tenant, about a dozen city facilities, and a bunch of retail multi-unit business. I was musing, off-list, as to why there isn't a Mad-Lib you can just plug some numbers into and get within, say, 40% or so of your target costs for a given design. Well, http://www.ftthcommunitytoolkit.wikispaces.net isn't it, but it does have a bunch of useful information for this project, looks like. A couple of clarifying points: 1) I had posited GPON as I assumed that was where most of the CATV over FTTH hardware work was, vice FiOS. Turns out there's lots of hardware for IPTV as well, and quite a number of smaller deployments, so apparently that path is easier than I thought. The only difference is cross-connect fiber counts, and possibly some link budget. 2) I was planning to provide an IX switch in my colo, so all my L3 providers could short-circuit traffic to my *other* providers through it, unloading my uplinks. 3) Given that, I suppose I could put Limelight and Akamai racks in there, and couple them to the IX switch as well, policies permitting. 4) Given what a pisser it's going to be to get tags to me on the local backbone loops (about 3 are with 5 miles of my city border), I'm also considering having a 10G or 2 hauled in from each of 2 backbones, and reselling those to my L3 providers (again at cost recovery pricing), while not precluding any provider wanting to haul in their own uplink from doing so. A better model, IMHO, is to encourage the backbones to come meet your providers at your IX/Colo. 5) There's a possiblity my college campus may be on I2 (or want to); perhaps I can facilitate that as well -- and possible (again, policies permitting) extend such connections to relevant staff members or students who live in the city) (I'm not as familiar with I2 as I should be). Do some research before you pursue this too vocally or commit to it. 6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I had gathered, it's still harder than them doing VoIP as part of their own triple-play. Pandora's can of worms. Owen
Re: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
That's one of the reasons to look at active ethernet over gpon. There is much more of a chance to do v6 on that gear, especially cisco's Metro ethernet switches. On Feb 2, 2013 5:27 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no other reason but get the best pricing you can. I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely, you'll want your neutral layer 2 infrastrcuture to at least support RA-guard and DHCPv6 shield. You might also want/need DHCPv6 PD snooping, MLD snooping. We have found VERY disappointing support for these features in this type of gear. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com 6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I had gathered, it's still harder than them doing VoIP as part of their own triple-play. So you are going to prohibit the operator of the fiber plant from running layer 3 services, but then turn around and let them offer IPTV? That seems quite inconsistent to me. And just because it's hard? No; I wouldn't offer it retail; I'd offer it to all provider-comers wholesale, at cost plus, just like everything else. Running a decent layer 3 service is hard too. Isn't the whole point to let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and cost of their services? You could say the same thing about the uplink, though; I note you didn't throw a flag at that, or at Akamai; is the IPTV issue different to you? Fair point. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely, you'll want your neutral layer 2 infrastrcuture to at least support RA-guard and DHCPv6 shield. You might also want/need DHCPv6 PD snooping, MLD snooping. We have found VERY disappointing support for these features in this type of gear. IPv6 would be on my ticklist, yes. :-) 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: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com So you are going to prohibit the operator of the fiber plant from running layer 3 services, but then turn around and let them offer IPTV? That seems quite inconsistent to me. And just because it's hard? No; I wouldn't offer it retail; I'd offer it to all provider-comers wholesale, at cost plus, just like everything else. It's just been pointed out to me that I can farm that out. :-) 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: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com 6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I had gathered, it's still harder than them doing VoIP as part of their own triple-play. So you are going to prohibit the operator of the fiber plant from running layer 3 services, but then turn around and let them offer IPTV? That seems quite inconsistent to me. And just because it's hard? No; I wouldn't offer it retail; I'd offer it to all provider-comers wholesale, at cost plus, just like everything else. It sure seems like just pushing the competition (or lack thereof) up the stack. Running a decent layer 3 service is hard too. Isn't the whole point to let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and cost of their services? You could say the same thing about the uplink, Which uplink is that? I'm a little confused. though; I note you didn't throw a flag at that, or at Akamai; is the IPTV issue different to you? If you were to open your colo to all comers that have similar models to Akamai, that seems fair. After all, it's not the city selling Akamai services to either the ISPs or end-users, the city is just providing a convenient way for the providers that are there to interconnect with content providers that care to show up. Now if you were to encourage an IPTV services provider that WASN'T the city to co-locate at the facility, that seems reasonable as long as terms were even if another one wanted to show up. I could imagine that some might sell service direct retail, others might go wholesale with one of the other service providers. Maybe both? This whole thing is the highway analogy to me. The fiber is the road. The city MIGHT build a rest stop (layer 2), but shouldn't be allowed to either be in the trucking business (layer 3), nor in the business of manufacturing the products that get shipped over the road (IPTV, VOIP, etc.), and the same should apply to the company that maintains the fiber, if it's outsourced. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 06:14:56PM -0500, Brandon Ross wrote: This whole thing is the highway analogy to me. The fiber is the road. The city MIGHT build a rest stop (layer 2), but shouldn't be allowed to either be in the trucking business (layer 3), nor in the business of manufacturing the products that get shipped over the road (IPTV, VOIP, etc.), and the same should apply to the company that maintains the fiber, if it's outsourced. I think your analogy is largely correct (I'm not sure Rest Stop == Layer 2 is perfect, but close enough), but it is a very important way of describing things to a non-technical audience. FTTH should operate like roads in many respects. From ownership and access, to how the network is expanded. For instance a new neighborhood would see the developer build both the roads and fiber to specifications, and then turn them over to the municipality. Same model. Having multiple people build the infrastructure would be just as inefficeint as if every house had two roads built to it by two private companies. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpC6aLOUA4B5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com No; I wouldn't offer it retail; I'd offer it to all provider-comers wholesale, at cost plus, just like everything else. It sure seems like just pushing the competition (or lack thereof) up the stack. Could be. To compete with Roadrunner, people will have to do triple play, and the CATV is the hard part. If someone else is already doing the aggregation, I'm good with that. Running a decent layer 3 service is hard too. Isn't the whole point to let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and cost of their services? You could say the same thing about the uplink, Which uplink is that? I'm a little confused. My colo's uplinks to the world, which were one of three things I proposed offering at wholesale to ISPs. though; I note you didn't throw a flag at that, or at Akamai; is the IPTV issue different to you? If you were to open your colo to all comers that have similar models to Akamai, that seems fair. After all, it's not the city selling Akamai services to either the ISPs or end-users, the city is just providing a convenient way for the providers that are there to interconnect with content providers that care to show up. Precisely. Akamai's business model is that they just show up? Me and my ISPs don't have to pay them? Now if you were to encourage an IPTV services provider that WASN'T the city to co-locate at the facility, that seems reasonable as long as terms were even if another one wanted to show up. I could imagine that some might sell service direct retail, others might go wholesale with one of the other service providers. Maybe both? Perhaps; yeah. This whole thing is the highway analogy to me. The fiber is the road. The city MIGHT build a rest stop (layer 2), but shouldn't be allowed to either be in the trucking business (layer 3), nor in the business of manufacturing the products that get shipped over the road (IPTV, VOIP, etc.), and the same should apply to the company that maintains the fiber, if it's outsourced. Ok, fair point. My goal in IX and Akamai was unload my uplinks. The bigger my downlinks are, the more I will care. 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: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org Having multiple people build the infrastructure would be just as inefficeint as if every house had two roads built to it by two private companies. I was going to trot on the Manhattan 26-crossbuck telephone pole, and multiple power wires and water pipes, but roads is *much* better. Especially since my dad did this in the 70s, and I am a *big* fan of deep breath The Dwight D Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Yes, the Interstate System has a home page: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/homepage.cfm 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: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com Running a decent layer 3 service is hard too. Isn't the whole point to let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and cost of their services? You could say the same thing about the uplink, Which uplink is that? I'm a little confused. My colo's uplinks to the world, which were one of three things I proposed offering at wholesale to ISPs. I guess I missed that. You are saying that you would aggregate/resell transit bandwidth in your colo? I would argue against that as well. I'd suggest making sure your colo had adequate entrance facilities to allow whomever wants to provide upstream service there to show up, and allow them access to the fiber, which you already effectively have done. though; I note you didn't throw a flag at that, or at Akamai; is the IPTV issue different to you? If you were to open your colo to all comers that have similar models to Akamai, that seems fair. After all, it's not the city selling Akamai services to either the ISPs or end-users, the city is just providing a convenient way for the providers that are there to interconnect with content providers that care to show up. Precisely. Akamai's business model is that they just show up? Me and my ISPs don't have to pay them? I guess as far as putting an Akamai server in a colo/on an exchange, I assumed they didn't charge, but now that you mention it, I don't have first hand knowledge of that. I certainly would suggest that the city should not pay for anyone to show up at the colo, but allow them access if they care to do so on equal footing. Of course Akamai charges for their services, that's a bit different than just exchanging traffic. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is cheap enough in brand new builds) to simply home run every home and maintain that. ISPs that would want to use the shared network in general (95% in my experience) don't want to maintain the access gear and since there is no clear way to delineate responsibilities when there is an issue its hard. The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 sharing and its not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes that. The thing you have to remember is that muni networks have to be cost effective and that's not just the capital costs. The operational cost in the long term is much greater than the cost of initial gear and fiber install. On Feb 2, 2013 4:54 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It seems that you are (deliberately or otherwise) seriously misconstruing what I am saying. I'm saying that if you build an L1 dark fiber system as we have described, the purchasers can use it to deploy Ethernet, PON, or any other technology. I'm not saying it's how I would build out a PON only system. That was never the goal. The goal is to provide a municipal L1 service that can be used by ANY provider for ANY service, or as close to that as possible. To make the offering more attractive to low-budget providers, the system may also incorporate some L2 services. Owen On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Owen, Cross connecting at layer 1 is what I'm saying isn't feasible. If you want to simply hand them a fiber then sell dark fiber or DWDM ports but trying to create an architecture around PON or other splitters won't work because PON splitters aren't compatible with other protocols. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Owen, 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. What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? What problem are you tying to solve? Ethernet works just fine in the L1 solution I've proposed, so I'm not sure why you say it isn't economically viable to do so. Owen On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my assessment is correct or not... Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner? Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a flexible L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low barrier to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services. Owen -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Jay, While its certainly technically possible to offer linear video in a shared network model the content owners have big objections of that. There really is no way to do wholesale IPTV except for a very few organizations like the cable coop (NCTC http://www.nctconline.org/). On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com 6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I had gathered, it's still harder than them doing VoIP as part of their own triple-play. So you are going to prohibit the operator of the fiber plant from running layer 3 services, but then turn around and let them offer IPTV? That seems quite inconsistent to me. And just because it's hard? No; I wouldn't offer it retail; I'd offer it to all provider-comers wholesale, at cost plus, just like everything else. Running a decent layer 3 service is hard too. Isn't the whole point to let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and cost of their services? You could say the same thing about the uplink, though; I note you didn't throw a flag at that, or at Akamai; is the IPTV issue different to you? Fair point. 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?
- Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com Owen I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is cheap enough in brand new builds) to simply home run every home and maintain that. That's my fundamental design assumption, and you're the first person to throw a flag on it. I'm hearing $700 per passing and $600 per sub; those seem sustainable numbers for a 30 year service life amortization. I'm not yet 100% clear if that's layer 1 only or layer 2 agg as well. [ And note that for me, it's practical; most everyone else is merely along for the ride. ] ISPs that would want to use the shared network in general (95% in my experience) don't want to maintain the access gear and since there is no clear way to delineate responsibilities when there is an issue its hard. You're talking about what I'm calling L2 clients. If layer 2 falls over it's my fault, and believe me, I'll know about it. The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 sharing and its not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes that. You just changed gears again, no? I'm not trying to share L1 *drops*. I'm trying to make it possible to share *the entire L1 deployment between providers*, a drop at a time. The thing you have to remember is that muni networks have to be cost effective and that's not just the capital costs. The operational cost in the long term is much greater than the cost of initial gear and fiber install. Depends on what you're trying to do. But yes, I do know the difference between CAPEX and OPEX. 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 network ownership and the Fourth
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes: On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:30 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-01-29 22:03, Leo Bicknell wrote: The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind. The muni MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a generator to work. It should not need to be staffed 24x7, have anything that requires PM, etc. This is not possible in a GPON system. The OLT has to be carrier neutral so that different carriers can connect to it. It is the last point of aggregation before reaching homes. Otherwise, you would need to run multiple strands to each splitter box and inside run as many splitters as there are ISPs so that one home an be connect to the splitter used by ISP-1 while the next home's strand is connected to another splitter associated with ISP-2. This gets complicated. Why can't the splitters be in the MMR? (I'm genuinely asking... I confess to a certain level of GPON ignorance). Sorry for being late to the party (real work and all that). There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so are pretty much just limited to higher fiber counts in the field, which adds, tops, a couple of percent to the price of the build. More than offset by futureproofing and not requiring forklift upgrades to add a new technology for a few customers. Obviously the splitters should be owned by the service provider and upstream of the mega-patch-bay for a muni open access system. Meanwhile, EPON seems to be the technology that's won out on a global basis. Might have something to do with the price - all the hooks to support legacy ATM stuff in GPON's GEM come at a cost. :-) -r PS: Back in the mid-90s, I used to fantasize about being able to say legacy ATM.
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is cheap enough in brand new builds) to simply home run every home and maintain that. That's my fundamental design assumption, and you're the first person to throw a flag on it. I'm hearing $700 per passing and $600 per sub; those seem sustainable numbers for a 30 year service life amortization. I'm not yet 100% clear if that's layer 1 only or layer 2 agg as well. OK, think about it like this. The most efficient topology to provide both coverage and resiliency is a ring with nodes (shelves) from which end users are connected. That ring (usually Gig or 10Gig Ethernet today) needs to be connected to a central location so you can interconnect to other providers (your ISP customers) and/or to connect to the Internet if the city is also going to provide direct L3 services. If you instead push down a L1 path then the most expensive pieces of gear in the access network (the FTTx shelves) have to be replicated by everyone who wants to offer services. This bad not just from the initial cost perspective but because people and companies that identify themselves as ISPs seldom know anything beyond Ethernet and IP and then only in a few manufacturers (mainly Cisco and Juniper). They are most certainly not comfortable working with Calix, Adtran, and the rest of the carrier (formerly telco) equipment manufacturers. To make matters more complicated in cases of problems you don't have a good demarcation of responsibility. What do you do as the L1 provider when one of your ISP partners tells you one of his customers can't connect or stay connected to that ISP's gear? Whose responsible in that case? What happens when your tech goes out with an OTDR ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_time-domain_reflectometer) meter and says the connection is fine but your ISP insists its your problem? [ And note that for me, it's practical; most everyone else is merely along for the ride. ] ISPs that would want to use the shared network in general (95% in my experience) don't want to maintain the access gear and since there is no clear way to delineate responsibilities when there is an issue its hard. You're talking about what I'm calling L2 clients. If layer 2 falls over it's my fault, and believe me, I'll know about it. What I'm telling you is that you can't reliably have L1 clients in shared model. You can of course lease someone a dark fiber from point A to point B, but that's not a traditional way of partnering with ISPs and in any case will only be feasible for a small number of connections since you (probably) can't afford to home run each location in your network. The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 sharing and its not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes that. You just changed gears again, no? I'm not trying to share L1 *drops*. I'm trying to make it possible to share *the entire L1 deployment between providers*, a drop at a time. That's what I'm trying to tell you can't do. Its more expensive in both the initial and long term costs. The thing you have to remember is that muni networks have to be cost effective and that's not just the capital costs. The operational cost in the long term is much greater than the cost of initial gear and fiber install. Depends on what you're trying to do. But yes, I do know the difference between CAPEX and OPEX. 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?
- Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com Owen I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is cheap enough in brand new builds) to simply home run every home and maintain that. That's my fundamental design assumption, and you're the first person to throw a flag on it. I'm hearing $700 per passing and $600 per sub; those seem sustainable numbers for a 30 year service life amortization. I'm not yet 100% clear if that's layer 1 only or layer 2 agg as well. OK, think about it like this. The most efficient topology to provide both coverage and resiliency is a ring with nodes (shelves) from which end users are connected. That ring (usually Gig or 10Gig Ethernet today) needs to be connected to a central location so you can interconnect to other providers (your ISP customers) and/or to connect to the Internet if the city is also going to provide direct L3 services. If you instead push down a L1 path then the most expensive pieces of gear in the access network (the FTTx shelves) have to be replicated by everyone who wants to offer services. In short, you're saying I *must* have a ring with active equipment scattered around it, and I *cannot* home run each property. No one else is saying that, and you don't appear to justify it later in this email: This bad not just from the initial cost perspective but because people and companies that identify themselves as ISPs seldom know anything beyond Ethernet and IP and then only in a few manufacturers (mainly Cisco and Juniper). They are most certainly not comfortable working with Calix, Adtran, and the rest of the carrier (formerly telco) equipment manufacturers. Well, ok, but those people who are not comfortable handling access gear like the Calix will be L2 clients, anyway, taking a groomed 802.1q handoff from my Calix/whatever core, so they won't *have* to care. L1 access will be there a) cause it has to be anyway, to keep active equipment out of the outside plant, b) for people who really want PtP, and 3) for ISPs large enough to want to do it themselves, if any show up (they admittedly might not; we're only 6k households). To make matters more complicated in cases of problems you don't have a good demarcation of responsibility. What do you do as the L1 provider when one of your ISP partners tells you one of his customers can't connect or stay connected to that ISP's gear? Whose responsible in that case? Well that's an interesting question, but I don't see that it's not orthogonal to the issue you raised earlier. What happens when your tech goes out with an OTDR ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_time-domain_reflectometer) meter and says the connection is fine but your ISP insists its your problem? On an L1 connection, you mean? I'll do what people always do; I'll work the ticket; at that level, this stuff's relatively digital, no? You're talking about what I'm calling L2 clients. If layer 2 falls over it's my fault, and believe me, I'll know about it. What I'm telling you is that you can't reliably have L1 clients in shared model. You're telling me that, but you're not giving me good reasons *why* you think so. You can of course lease someone a dark fiber from point A to point B, but that's not a traditional way of partnering with ISPs and in any case will only be feasible for a small number of connections since you (probably) can't afford to home run each location in your network. Well, I'll have to see on that, won't I? That's my next practicality checkpoint; fiber passing costs. The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 sharing and its not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes that. You just changed gears again, no? I'm not trying to share L1 *drops*. I'm trying to make it possible to share *the entire L1 deployment between providers*, a drop at a time. That's what I'm trying to tell you can't do. Its more expensive in both the initial and long term costs. I can see 'initial', maybe, but if I reduce the utility of the field network by putting active equipment in it, then I've already raised the OPEX, substantially, as well as reducing the intrinsic value of that network. 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 network ownership and the Fourth
- Original Message - From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com Why can't the splitters be in the MMR? (I'm genuinely asking... I confess to a certain level of GPON ignorance). Sorry for being late to the party (real work and all that). There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so are pretty much just limited to higher fiber counts in the field, which adds, tops, a couple of percent to the price of the build. Ok, see, this is what Leo, Owen and I all think, and maybe a couple others. But Scott just got done telling me it's *so* much more expensive to home-run than ring or GPON-in-pedestals that it's commercially infeasible. More than offset by futureproofing and not requiring forklift upgrades to add a new technology for a few customers. Obviously the splitters should be owned by the service provider and upstream of the mega-patch-bay for a muni open access system. Well, I would assume the splitters have to be compatible with the OLT/ONT chosen by a prospective L1 client, no? Or is GPON GPON, which is GPON? Meanwhile, EPON seems to be the technology that's won out on a global basis. Might have something to do with the price - all the hooks to support legacy ATM stuff in GPON's GEM come at a cost. :-) Hmmm. I invite you, Rob, if you have the time, to look at the Rollup and Followup posts I put out this afternoon, which are the look at this which is closest to current in time. 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: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Feb 2, 2013 3:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: .. This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at Jay may be referring to something I alluded to earlier, what Calix refers to as RF overlay. The RF signal from the traditional cable system is converted to 1550nm and combined onto the PON before the splitter with a CWDM module. Certain model ONT's split the 1550 back off and convert back to an RF port.
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
On Feb 2, 2013 7:56 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Well, I would assume the splitters have to be compatible with the OLT/ONT chosen by a prospective L1 client, no? Or is GPON GPON, which is GPON? Splitters are passive. They only split light. They care not what information the light is carrying.
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:55:34PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote: From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so are pretty much just limited to higher fiber counts in the field, which adds, tops, a couple of percent to the price of the build. Ok, see, this is what Leo, Owen and I all think, and maybe a couple others. But Scott just got done telling me it's *so* much more expensive to home-run than ring or GPON-in-pedestals that it's commercially infeasible. Note, both are right, depending on the starting point and goals. Historically teclos have installed (relatively) low count fiber cables, based on a fiber to the pedistal and copper to the prem strategy. If you have one of these existing deployments, the cost of home run fiber (basically starting the fiber build from scratch, since the count is so low) is more expensive, and much greater cost than deploying GPON or similar over the existing plant. However, that GPON equipment will have a lifespan of 7-20 years. In a greenfield scenario where there is no fiber in the ground the cost is in digging the trench. The fiber going into it is only ~5% of the cost, and going from a 64 count fiber to a 864 count fiber only moves that to 7-8%. The fiber has a life of 40-80 years, and thus adding high count is cheaper than doing low count with GPON. Existing builds are optimizing to avoid sending out the backhoe and directional boring machine. New builds, or extreme forward thinking builds are trying to send them out once and never again. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpTLITWvZ_KU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
OK, think about it like this. The most efficient topology to provide both coverage and resiliency is a ring with nodes (shelves) from which end users are connected. That ring (usually Gig or 10Gig Ethernet today) needs to be connected to a central location so you can interconnect to other providers (your ISP customers) and/or to connect to the Internet if the city is also going to provide direct L3 services. If you instead push down a L1 path then the most expensive pieces of gear in the access network (the FTTx shelves) have to be replicated by everyone who wants to offer services. In short, you're saying I *must* have a ring with active equipment scattered around it, and I *cannot* home run each property. No one else is saying that, and you don't appear to justify it later in this email: I'm not saying that you have to, but that's the most efficient and resilient (both of those are important right?) way of arranging the gear. The exact loop length from the shelves to the end users is up to you and in certain circumstances (generally really compact areas) you can simply home run everyone. Most muni networks don't look that way though because while town centers are generally compact where people (especially the better subdivisions) live is away from the center of town in the US. I can't give you a lot insight on your specific area since I don't know it, but those are the general rules. This bad not just from the initial cost perspective but because people and companies that identify themselves as ISPs seldom know anything beyond Ethernet and IP and then only in a few manufacturers (mainly Cisco and Juniper). They are most certainly not comfortable working with Calix, Adtran, and the rest of the carrier (formerly telco) equipment manufacturers. Well, ok, but those people who are not comfortable handling access gear like the Calix will be L2 clients, anyway, taking a groomed 802.1q handoff from my Calix/whatever core, so they won't *have* to care. That works, so long as its an Ethernet hand off you're (usually there is some goofy gear out there) in good shape. L1 access will be there a) cause it has to be anyway, to keep active equipment out of the outside plant, b) for people who really want PtP, and 3) for ISPs large enough to want to do it themselves, if any show up (they admittedly might not; we're only 6k households). Keep in place, but I've worked with virtually all of the nationwide guys and most of the regional ones and they don't as a rule want anything to do with your fiber plant. Even in major metro areas selling dark fiber doesn't have a huge uptake because if you the network owner didn't light it you have no idea how good or bad the splices and runs are. To make matters more complicated in cases of problems you don't have a good demarcation of responsibility. What do you do as the L1 provider when one of your ISP partners tells you one of his customers can't connect or stay connected to that ISP's gear? Whose responsible in that case? Well that's an interesting question, but I don't see that it's not orthogonal to the issue you raised earlier. What happens when your tech goes out with an OTDR ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_time-domain_reflectometer) meter and says the connection is fine but your ISP insists its your problem? On an L1 connection, you mean? I'll do what people always do; I'll work the ticket; at that level, this stuff's relatively digital, no? No, its not and I've seen several of networks fail because demarc issues. US Carrier (a statewide network here in GA) was recently sold for pennies on the dollar largely because of blurry demarcs. You can and will get sucked into scenarios you don't want to be in and will lose money on. You're talking about what I'm calling L2 clients. If layer 2 falls over it's my fault, and believe me, I'll know about it. What I'm telling you is that you can't reliably have L1 clients in shared model. You're telling me that, but you're not giving me good reasons *why* you think so. Because: 1) There won't be much interest in doing it from experienced operators so you're only going to get customers for it that are also new to the business. So your combined troubleshooting and install time will be bad for a long time until everyone in the chain kind of understand what they're doing. 2) Unless you can home run every single connection you're going to run into a lot of access related issues. You will be working for the city so they won't have a problem with you getting into their building at the water tower/sewage treatment plant/power sub station or other city owned property. Your L1 customer isn't going to have that access (not with the city manager/mayor/council's knowledge anyway) because of regulatory and liability reasons. If you do home run everything you still have an access challenge (where are you going to
Re: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Jason, Yeah, that's what I figured. There are lots of older PON deployments that used the modulated RF approach. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2013 3:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: .. This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at Jay may be referring to something I alluded to earlier, what Calix refers to as RF overlay. The RF signal from the traditional cable system is converted to 1550nm and combined onto the PON before the splitter with a CWDM module. Certain model ONT's split the 1550 back off and convert back to an RF port. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
The difference between building a ring and then dropping connections and home running all of the connections is much more than difference in fiber count. However, its certainly true that home running works in some greenfield deployments and I hope I have not confused anyone on that point. A detailed look at the area to be covered along with the goals of the network will definitely drive you in the correct deployment model. This should be one of the first things you do. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:55:34PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote: From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so are pretty much just limited to higher fiber counts in the field, which adds, tops, a couple of percent to the price of the build. Ok, see, this is what Leo, Owen and I all think, and maybe a couple others. But Scott just got done telling me it's *so* much more expensive to home-run than ring or GPON-in-pedestals that it's commercially infeasible. Note, both are right, depending on the starting point and goals. Historically teclos have installed (relatively) low count fiber cables, based on a fiber to the pedistal and copper to the prem strategy. If you have one of these existing deployments, the cost of home run fiber (basically starting the fiber build from scratch, since the count is so low) is more expensive, and much greater cost than deploying GPON or similar over the existing plant. However, that GPON equipment will have a lifespan of 7-20 years. In a greenfield scenario where there is no fiber in the ground the cost is in digging the trench. The fiber going into it is only ~5% of the cost, and going from a 64 count fiber to a 864 count fiber only moves that to 7-8%. The fiber has a life of 40-80 years, and thus adding high count is cheaper than doing low count with GPON. Existing builds are optimizing to avoid sending out the backhoe and directional boring machine. New builds, or extreme forward thinking builds are trying to send them out once and never again. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 09:28:06PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote: I'm not saying that you have to, but that's the most efficient and resilient (both of those are important right?) way of arranging the gear. The exact loop length from the shelves to the end users is up to you and in certain circumstances (generally really compact areas) you can simply home run everyone. Most muni networks don't look that way though because while town centers are generally compact where people (especially the better subdivisions) live is away from the center of town in the US. I can't give you a lot insight on your specific area since I don't know it, but those are the general rules. If the goal is the minimize the capital outlay of a greenfield build, your model can be more efficient, depending on the geography covered. Basically you're assuming that the active electronics to make a ring are cheaper than building high count fiber back to a central point. There are geographies where that is both true, and not true. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're model is cheaper for a majority of builds. On the other hand, I am not nearly as interested in minimizing the up front capital cost. It's an issue, sure, but I care much more about the total lifecycle cost. I'd rather spend 20% more up front to end up with 20-80% lower costs over 50 years. My argument is not that high count fiber back to a central location is cheaper in absolute, up front dollars, but that it's at worst a minimal amount more and will have neglegable additonal cost over a 40-80 year service life. By contrast, the ring topology you suggest may be slightly less expensive up front, but will require the active parts that make up the ring to be swapped out every 7-20 years. I believe that will lead to greater lifecycle cost; and almost importantly impeed development of new services as the existing gear ends up incompatable with newer technologies. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpCc5V1mvTmK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
This has been a fascinating discussion :) While we don't quite qualify as a small city, we do have quite a dispersion of coverage across our residence halls and general campus. There is an ongoing RFP process to build out our own CATV distribution (or more generally, to avoid the resident CATV provider charge monopoly). Initial competitors included incumbent cable (largely RF coax), new providers (also RF coax), and content-only providers (either assuming we do distribution over our fiber, or add another distribution component), to IPTV solutions (using existing network). IPTV requires a very co-operative multicast distribution, which we currently do not have (not exclusive vendor gear end-to-end); it needs to be designed that way from the beginning as opposed to bolted onto the end. RF CATV (or HFC distribution) requires some unique fiber plant... notably AFC terminations as opposed to the UPCs we have for data. And you have to consider one-way content provider network, versus two-way feedback (and the associated set-top box complications we're trying to avoid). And throw in the phone for the other triple play component, and you're generally talking PoE[+]. Even in a captive audience, the possibilities are challenging :) Jeff
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Technically, any of the architectures espoused by some of the commentators on this thread will work, and would at least be an order of magnitude better than what is available in the local loop today. One of the commentators, however, did underscore the biggest challenge by far to national broadband. (Even the watered down version consisting of a welter of autonomous municipal networks as is the subject of this thread). And that challenge is the stranglehold that incumbent telcos have on the local loop, and their caustic, anti-progress influence in City Halls, Sate Legislatures, and Washington DC. That is why the Australian NBN serves as a good example of how to wrest control of the local loop plant away from the telcos. In many areas of the US a parallel fiber network is already in place, built out by the Federal School Lunch e-rate program. Here, regrettably, the telcos have exerted their caustic influence by compelling legislators to allow only school and library traffic on the e-rate fiber. As far as a purely technical solution, in my own experience some years ago I worked in the entertainment business in the Burbank/Glendale, Ca. area. Both cites, led by the visionary Burbank Department of Water and Power, built out dark fiber networks. Of course, getting municipal fiber in Glendale required an intense struggle with the incumbent telco, which sent a representative to every city council meeting arguing that municipal fiber was bad for the city residents. David On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 09:28:06PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote: I'm not saying that you have to, but that's the most efficient and resilient (both of those are important right?) way of arranging the gear. The exact loop length from the shelves to the end users is up to you and in certain circumstances (generally really compact areas) you can simply home run everyone. Most muni networks don't look that way though because while town centers are generally compact where people (especially the better subdivisions) live is away from the center of town in the US. I can't give you a lot insight on your specific area since I don't know it, but those are the general rules. If the goal is the minimize the capital outlay of a greenfield build, your model can be more efficient, depending on the geography covered. Basically you're assuming that the active electronics to make a ring are cheaper than building high count fiber back to a central point. There are geographies where that is both true, and not true. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're model is cheaper for a majority of builds. On the other hand, I am not nearly as interested in minimizing the up front capital cost. It's an issue, sure, but I care much more about the total lifecycle cost. I'd rather spend 20% more up front to end up with 20-80% lower costs over 50 years. My argument is not that high count fiber back to a central location is cheaper in absolute, up front dollars, but that it's at worst a minimal amount more and will have neglegable additonal cost over a 40-80 year service life. By contrast, the ring topology you suggest may be slightly less expensive up front, but will require the active parts that make up the ring to be swapped out every 7-20 years. I believe that will lead to greater lifecycle cost; and almost importantly impeed development of new services as the existing gear ends up incompatable with newer technologies. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
If the goal is the minimize the capital outlay of a greenfield build, your model can be more efficient, depending on the geography covered. Basically you're assuming that the active electronics to make a ring are cheaper than building high count fiber back to a central point. There are geographies where that is both true, and not true. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're model is cheaper for a majority of builds. Agreed, there are definitely scenarios where home running everything makes sense. On the other hand, I am not nearly as interested in minimizing the up front capital cost. It's an issue, sure, but I care much more about the total lifecycle cost. I'd rather spend 20% more up front to end up with 20-80% lower costs over 50 years. My argument is not that high count fiber back to a central location is cheaper in absolute, up front dollars, but that it's at worst a minimal amount more and will have neglegable additonal cost over a 40-80 year service life. Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably going to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that you didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth of homes and businesses in your area your chances of getting both the numbers right _and_ the locations are pretty slim. Also, you're going to have to replace gear no matter where it is core or nodes on a ring. Granted gear that lives in a CO can be less expensive but its not that much of a difference (~1% of gear costs). Having a ring topology is basically the best way we've come up with as of yet to hedge your bets, especially since you can extend your ring when you need. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
C7 is old school. E7/E20 is far far far far far far different. On Feb 2, 2013 2:55 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Jay, I'm spotty on mailing lists since most of my time is spent building these kinds of networks. 1) Talk to more vendors than just Calix, especially if they're quoting their Ethernet density on the C7. Also, keep in mind that port density may or may not be relevant to your situation since space for muni shelves isn't usually a problem. Port density is much more important if you're deploying in existing telco enclosures but muni networks tend (not universally of course) to reuse existing city infrastructure building to house the nodes of their network. Please note that I am not reccomending against Calix, they're a good solution in many cases, but AE is not a strong point on the C7. The E7 and the B series, which is the old Occam product, is much better than the C7. For that matter I wouldn't consider doing a new build on the C7 since that platform's EoL can't be too far in the future. 2) I have no idea who told you this, but this is completely and utterly incorrect in nationwide terms. If you have a specific layer 3 provder in mind that tells you they want a GPON hand off then that's fine, but ISPs in general don't know what GPON is and have no gear to terminate that kind of connection. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com Why on earth would you do this with PON instead of active Ethernet? What GPON vendor have you found where their technical staff will tell you this is a good architecture for their PON offering? Asked and answered, Scott; have you been ignoring the threads all week? I'm pretty sure I even answered it in the posting, but just in case: 1) Line cards for the OLT frames appear to be 2 orders of magnitude denser for GPON termination than AE (480 ports per 10U vs 10k ports per 10U in Calix, unless I've badly misunderstood my sources), and 2) GPON is what potential L3 providers large enough to want an optical handoff are generally used to. If someone wants AE, they can certainly have it. (C'mon; miss the *next* turn, too :-) 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: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Word to dropping docsis science on NANOG. On Feb 2, 2013 3:34 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: I hope I said E7; it's what I meant to say. Yes, I wasn't going to stop at Calix; I'm just juggling budgetary type numbers at the moment; I'll have 3 or 4 quotes before I go to press. It's a 36 month project just to beginning of build, at this point, likely. Assuming I get the gig at all. The E7 is a good shelf, so that's a decent starting point. I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no other reason but get the best pricing you can. I'd also focus much more on your cost per port than the density since your uptake rate will be driven by economics long before port density and how much space your gear takes becomes an issue. 2) I have no idea who told you this, but this is completely and utterly incorrect in nationwide terms. If you have a specific layer 3 provder in mind that tells you they want a GPON hand off then that's fine, but ISPs in general don't know what GPON is and have no gear to terminate that kind of connection. Other people here, said it. If nothing else, it's certainly what the largest nationwide FTTH provider is provisioning, and I suspect it serves more passings than anything else; possibly than everything else. I'm not sure what you mean by this. The largest PON offering in the US is Verizon's FIOS, but AFAIK they don't interconnect with anyone at layer 2 and their layer 3 fiber connections are either Packet Over SONET, Gig E(most common), or very occasionally still ATM. I have heard of a few instances where they'd buy existing GPON networks but I've never heard of them cross connecting like this even with operators that they do significant business with in other ways. But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout. This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works. 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 -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
What does Cisco shitty metro switches have to do with anything? Haay we have the best shitty metro-e boxes around. We're awesome. On Feb 2, 2013 4:49 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: That's one of the reasons to look at active ethernet over gpon. There is much more of a chance to do v6 on that gear, especially cisco's Metro ethernet switches. On Feb 2, 2013 5:27 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no other reason but get the best pricing you can. I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely, you'll want your neutral layer 2 infrastrcuture to at least support RA-guard and DHCPv6 shield. You might also want/need DHCPv6 PD snooping, MLD snooping. We have found VERY disappointing support for these features in this type of gear. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:17:24PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote: Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably going to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that you didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth of homes and businesses in your area your chances of getting both the numbers right _and_ the locations are pretty slim. Also, you're going to have to replace gear no matter where it is core or nodes on a ring. Granted gear that lives in a CO can be less expensive but its not that much of a difference (~1% of gear costs). Having a ring topology is basically the best way we've come up with as of yet to hedge your bets, especially since you can extend your ring when you need. I'm not sure I understand your growth argument; both models will require additional build costs for growth to the network, and I think they roughly parallel the tradeoff's we've been discussing. As for the gear, I agree that the cost per port for the equipment providing service (Ethernet switch, GPON bits, WDM mux, whatever) is likely to be roughly similar in a CO and in the field. There's not a huge savings on the gear itself. But I would strongly disagree the overall costs, and services are similar. Compare a single CO of equipment to a network with 150 pedistals of active gear around a city. The CO can have one generator, and one battery bank. Most providers don't even put generator with each pedistal, and must maintain separate battery banks for each. A single CO could relatively cheaply have 24x7x356 hands to correct problems and swap equipment, where as the distributed network will add drive time to the equation and require higher staffing and greater costs (like the truck and fuel). Geography is a huge factor though. My concept of home running all fiber would be an extremely poor choice for extremely rural, low density networks. Your ring choice would be much, much better. On the flip side, in a high density world, say downtown NYC, my dark fiber to the end user network is far cheaper than building super-small rings and maintaining the support gear for the equipment (generators and batteries, if you can get space for them in most buildings). Still, I think direct dark fiber has lower lifecycle costs for 70-80% of the population living in cities and suburban areas. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpUSC9UGSK2M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:17:24PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote: Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably going to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that you didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth of homes and businesses in your area your chances of getting both the numbers right _and_ the locations are pretty slim. Also, you're going to have to replace gear no matter where it is core or nodes on a ring. Granted gear that lives in a CO can be less expensive but its not that much of a difference (~1% of gear costs). Having a ring topology is basically the best way we've come up with as of yet to hedge your bets, especially since you can extend your ring when you need. I'm not sure I understand your growth argument; both models will require additional build costs for growth to the network, and I think they roughly parallel the tradeoff's we've been discussing. Yes, but the reason why a ring with nodes is often the better architecture is because while both situations require more fiber to accomidate growth in areas that didn't previously have customers the distance from $new_area to existing ring is going to be shorter almost invariably than the distance from $new_area to CO. This matters not only from the stand point of it costs a certain amount per mile to bury or hang fiber but also because of right of ways and other hurdles that involve getting from point A to point B. As for the gear, I agree that the cost per port for the equipment providing service (Ethernet switch, GPON bits, WDM mux, whatever) is likely to be roughly similar in a CO and in the field. There's not a huge savings on the gear itself. But I would strongly disagree the overall costs, and services are similar. Compare a single CO of equipment to a network with 150 pedistals of active gear around a city. The CO can have one generator, and one battery bank. Most providers don't even put generator with each pedistal, and must maintain separate battery banks for each. A single CO could relatively cheaply have 24x7x356 hands to correct problems and swap equipment, where as the distributed network will add drive time to the equation and require higher staffing and greater costs (like the truck and fuel). Absolutely, getting a separate power meter for each enclosure, dealing with batteries there, and just remote gear all increases operational costs and the more nodes you have the greater that cost will be. Geography is a huge factor though. My concept of home running all fiber would be an extremely poor choice for extremely rural, low density networks. Your ring choice would be much, much better. On the flip side, in a high density world, say downtown NYC, my dark fiber to the end user network is far cheaper than building super-small rings and maintaining the support gear for the equipment (generators and batteries, if you can get space for them in most buildings). Still, I think direct dark fiber has lower lifecycle costs for 70-80% of the population living in cities and suburban areas. This is where the math gets hard and the specifics of each situation dictate what you need to do. IF you know precisely what your service area can be and that area is already densely populated then you're probably going to be able to cover all of that area with a single build. Downtown NYC is a scenario I'd completely agree with since you probably would also struggle trying to find places to install enclosures and you have a very tightly defined area that is densely populated today. I'd also say that this is not the normal muni network in the US today, since generally speaking muni networks spring up where the local area is poorly served by commercial operators. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
- Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably going to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that you didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth of homes and businesses in your area your chances of getting both the numbers right _and_ the locations are pretty slim. Also, you're going to have to replace gear no matter where it is core or nodes on a ring. Granted gear that lives in a CO can be less expensive but its not that much of a difference (~1% of gear costs). Having a ring topology is basically the best way we've come up with as of yet to hedge your bets, especially since you can extend your ring when you need. In most cases that's true. My city, however, is built so close to 100% that I don't think it matters much. Over 2500 units per sqmi. The problem with gear in the ring isn't cost. It's OAMP, and upgrades, and distributed emergency power, and, and, and... 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: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On 13-02-02 21:29, Scott Helms wrote: Yeah, that's what I figured. There are lots of older PON deployments that used the modulated RF approach. From what I have read, Verizon's FIOS does that. RFoG cable TV for certain frequencies, normal ethernet data for other frequencies, and dedicated bandwidth for VoIP. Cable companies in Canada have begun to deploy FTTH in greenfields. And those are deployed to be compatible with their coax infrastructure. The fibre from the CMTS is simply extended to the home instead of stopping at a node on a telephone pole. The coax starts at the ONT to get to the TV sets. Not sure if they have a DOCSIS modem attached to the coax or if they get the ethernet out of ONT. However, Rogers seems to have areas being deployed differently and I *believe* it is pure ethernet. (and not even sure if GPON). Rogers also wants to go all IPTV , something unexpected from a traditional cableTV company. Something to consider about dark fibre L1 service: If city lets Service Providers perform installations (string from telephone pole to homes etc), you need to worry about damages they can cause. And in cases when customer unsubscribes from SP-1 and subscribes to SP-2 you have to make sure that SP-1 doesn't damage the termination of the fibre in the home to make installation by SP-2 harder/costlier. In an L2 service, the city is responsible for all installations and de-installs and has no incentive to damage the infrastructure to hurt a competitor. And generally, the CPE is installed by city and stays in place when end user swiches service provider.
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
- Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca Something to consider about dark fibre L1 service: If city lets Service Providers perform installations (string from telephone pole to homes etc), you need to worry about damages they can cause. And in cases when customer unsubscribes from SP-1 and subscribes to SP-2 you have to make sure that SP-1 doesn't damage the termination of the fibre in the home to make installation by SP-2 harder/costlier. You're still not getting it. And I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not. But I've been pretty clear: Home run from each prem to an MDF. City employes do all M-A-C patch cable moves on the MDF, to horizontals into the colo, where the provider's gear aggregates it from L1 to whatever. No aerial plant at all, no multple provider runs to the prems. That's most of the point here. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On 13-02-02 23:17, Jay Ashworth wrote: Home run from each prem to an MDF. City employes do all M-A-C patch cable moves on the MDF, to horizontals into the colo, where the provider's gear aggregates it from L1 to whatever. No aerial plant at all, no multple provider runs to the prems. Not talking about MDF/CO/MMR or whatever you call the aggregation point. While you've made it clear that you don't let Service Providers play around in that aggregation point, you didn't define (or perhaps I missed it) the responsabilities for work at homes. When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it actually connect every home ? When passing homes, you would generally have pre-built taps such as Corning FlexNAPs along the cable so that a strand can be added quickly between the tap at telephone pole and the home wanting to get service. You only connect homes that subscribe to your service. (so you have to decide who is responsible for stringing fibre from telephone pole to the home when end user subscribes to a Service Provider's services. Not entirely sure what sort of methods they use when it is an underground cable plant. (perhaps more likely to see fibre brought to each home during the dig, perhaps not). In any event, you still have to worry about responsability if you allow Service Providers to install their on ONT or whatever CPE equipment in homes. If they damage the fibre cable when customer unsubscribes, who is responsible for the costs of repair ? (consider a case where either homeowner or SP just cuts the fibre as it comes out of wall when taking the ONT out to be returned to the SP. In Canada, the wholesale regime gives the owner of the cable plant (telco or cableco) responsibility for all installs even for independent ISPs. However, independent ISPs are responsible for providing approved modems to their customers. (different for VDSL where the telco provides the modems even for custoemrs of indy ISPs since the modems are customized to work with the VDSL DSLAMS selected by the telcos). In the case of cable companies, they have a list of approved DOCIS modems they allow independent ISPs to sell to teir customers. We'll see in the next few months what will transpire for a wholesale FTTH access in terms of responsabilities for CPE equipment (ONT, battery backup etc).
RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Live TV still makes up the majority of video viewing. http://www.thecab.tv/main/bm~doc/multiscreeninsights-2q12-p.pdf Multicasting video remains a valuable video distribution technique. Frank -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 9:53 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:17 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: snip If you have multicast and everyone is watching superbowl at same time, you're talking up very little bandwidth on that 2.mumble GPON link. Meh. Since everyone seems to want to be able to pause, rewind, etc., multicast doesn't tend to happen so much even in the IPTV world these days. Owen
RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. Frank -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure ATT knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
RE: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Scott: Is there a vendor that supports RFoG on the same strand as ActiveE? Frank -Original Message- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@zcorum.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:30 PM To: NANOG Subject: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout. This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works. 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 -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
RE: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Don't know what frequency they use but ppm.co.uk does all the way to 14ghz (our ku band) over dwdm.. From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. Original message From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com Date: 02/02/2013 10:10 PM (GMT-08:00) To: 'Scott Helms' khe...@zcorum.com,NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband Scott: Is there a vendor that supports RFoG on the same strand as ActiveE? Frank -Original Message- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@zcorum.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:30 PM To: NANOG Subject: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout. This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works. 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 -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
