Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Randy; Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the last mile? Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units? Any thoughts on good places to start for an english language speaker to learn about the Japanese broadband experience? thanks! Fletcher On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking about. The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no matter how crowded the vendor meet is. There are pockets of isolated/niche success and its great to see technology implemented in such ways, RFCs being drafted, etc., but jeez guys, the real issue at stake here is how in the hell we are all going to work past the bureaucratic constraints of our arguably humble positions to transparently superimpose something that will enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified infrastructure. This post in itself obviates our incapacity to handle our own infrastructure, and while I believe discussing this is of the utmost importance I have to point out, first and foremost, that the highest priority is a level playing field. I know at least some of you can really understand that and I hope it drive some of your sleeping points home a bit so you can wake up in the morning and get something right. life can be simple. i moved to a first world country, japan. $35/mo for real 100/100, and i could get faster, just don't need it for a couple of laptops. hope y'all are having fun in duopoly jail. randy -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the last mile? Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units? Any thoughts on good places to start for an english language speaker to learn about the Japanese broadband experience? You might look into what's being done in Sweden then, here there are municipality networks who dig up the streets and does fiber to the individual house in suburbia (you have to trench your own land though, 4dm deep, 1-2dm wide, they only dig in the street put down the pipe in your trench). Common cost for the house owner to get this done is in the 2-4kUSD range per house, then you can choose between multiple ISPs to purchase your bw from. 100/100 (symmetric speed) seems to cost 40 USD per month, 10/10 is 5-10 USD/month cheaper. I've been trying to run the text thru google translate, but the web magic seems to prohibit this from working. If someone can figure it out better than me, the URL is here (in swedish): http://www.sollentunaenergi.se/bredband/ansl_villor.asp -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:58:48 CST, Will Clayton said: enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified infrastructure. The same way we appeased them the *last* time we gave them incentives to deploy true high-capacity broadband, of course... pgpEphQYMlymo.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: FTTH Active vs Passive
Given the start up costs, it is not clear what is compelling. Here in Budapest I get Internet access for less than Euros. Roderick S. Beck Director of European Sales Hibernia Atlantic Budapest, New York, and Paris http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com -Original Message- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] Sent: Wed 12/2/2009 1:35 PM To: Fletcher Kittredge Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: FTTH Active vs Passive On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the last mile? Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units? Any thoughts on good places to start for an english language speaker to learn about the Japanese broadband experience? You might look into what's being done in Sweden then, here there are municipality networks who dig up the streets and does fiber to the individual house in suburbia (you have to trench your own land though, 4dm deep, 1-2dm wide, they only dig in the street put down the pipe in your trench). Common cost for the house owner to get this done is in the 2-4kUSD range per house, then you can choose between multiple ISPs to purchase your bw from. 100/100 (symmetric speed) seems to cost 40 USD per month, 10/10 is 5-10 USD/month cheaper. I've been trying to run the text thru google translate, but the web magic seems to prohibit this from working. If someone can figure it out better than me, the URL is here (in swedish): http://www.sollentunaenergi.se/bredband/ansl_villor.asp -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: You might look into what's being done in Sweden then, here there are municipality networks who dig up the streets and does fiber to the individual house in suburbia (you have to trench your own land though, 4dm deep, 1-2dm wide, they only dig in the street put down the pipe in your trench). Sounds good, though I don't see a majority of US consumers paying for the trench, nor do I see a lot of home builders paying for it either (around here they often skimp on putting in a real road, so the city forces the road to be private which leaves it a wonderful unmaintained gravel speed bump, much less wiring housing for data). In addition, I don't see the municipalities paying for plant like they do roads. Then again, I'm glad the city/county doesn't pay for our plant. They can barely maintain their roads. Politics, education, and how money flows in our economy are all probably show stoppers for widespread success. Jack
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
You might look into what's being done in Sweden then, here there are municipality networks who dig up the streets and does fiber to the individual house in suburbia (you have to trench your own land though, 4dm deep, 1-2dm wide, they only dig in the street put down the pipe in your trench). Common cost for the house owner to get this done is in the 2-4kUSD range per house, then you can choose between multiple ISPs to purchase your bw from. 100/100 (symmetric speed) seems to cost 40 USD per month, 10/10 is 5-10 USD/month cheaper. I've been trying to run the text thru google translate, but the web magic seems to prohibit this from working. If someone can figure it out better than me, the URL is here (in swedish): http://www.sollentunaenergi.se/bredband/ansl_villor.asp I'd look more to what they're doing in Rochester, NY: http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network Run it in the sewers. The sewer system runs to every building and household in the municipality. No need to re-trench anything. --Curtis
RE: FTTH Active vs Passive
-Original Message- From: Curtis Maurand [mailto:cmaur...@xyonet.com] SNIP I'd look more to what they're doing in Rochester, NY: http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network Run it in the sewers. The sewer system runs to every building and household in the municipality. No need to re-trench anything. --Curtis In the UK more homes have fixed wire telephony than mains sewers or water. Not sure what that means to this discussion :-) ___ Atos Origin and Atos Consulting are trading names used by the Atos Origin group. The following trading entities are registered in England and Wales: Atos Origin IT Services UK Limited (registered number 01245534) and Atos Consulting Limited (registered number 04312380). The registered office for each is at 4 Triton Square, Regents Place, London, NW1 3HG.The VAT No. for each is: GB232327983 This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee, and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this e-mail in error, you are not authorised to copy, disclose, use or retain it. Please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your systems. As emails may be intercepted, amended or lost, they are not secure. Atos Origin therefore can accept no liability for any errors or their content. Although Atos Origin endeavours to maintain a virus-free network, we do not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and can accept no liability for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. The risks are deemed to be accepted by everyone who communicates with Atos Origin by email. ___
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Thanks for the pointers, Mikael. unfortunately, my Swedish is not much better than my Japanese... But it is a good start and I am sure I will find some sort of English description somewhere. I should have been a bit more explicit in my question: I am not concerned on the routing of the last mile, sewer, trenching, etc. That is a solved problem for these projects. The big questions for me is PON vs active and, if PON, what are the details: prisms in the CO vs prisms in the field, which xPON to use, etc. How is splicing and interconnection done, etc. thanks! Fletcher On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the last mile? Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units? Any thoughts on good places to start for an english language speaker to learn about the Japanese broadband experience? You might look into what's being done in Sweden then, here there are municipality networks who dig up the streets and does fiber to the individual house in suburbia (you have to trench your own land though, 4dm deep, 1-2dm wide, they only dig in the street put down the pipe in your trench). Common cost for the house owner to get this done is in the 2-4kUSD range per house, then you can choose between multiple ISPs to purchase your bw from. 100/100 (symmetric speed) seems to cost 40 USD per month, 10/10 is 5-10 USD/month cheaper. I've been trying to run the text thru google translate, but the web magic seems to prohibit this from working. If someone can figure it out better than me, the URL is here (in swedish): http://www.sollentunaenergi.se/bredband/ansl_villor.asp -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
I'd look more to what they're doing in Rochester, NY: http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network Run it in the sewers. The sewer system runs to every building and household in the municipality. No need to re-trench anything. Ahh .. the TISP : http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html Regards, Michael Holstein Cleveland State University
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Mackinnon, Ian wrote: snip In the UK more homes have fixed wire telephony than mains sewers or water. Not sure what that means to this discussion :-) In the US as well, but if you're trying to run a new fiber network and you want it uderground, the sewers in metro areas are a good place to start. In the rural areas, however, everything is on poles except for new construction where trenching and conduit are required. I worked briefly for a small ILEC/CLEC here in Maine that does not replace copper trunks with copper any longer. If the copper goes bad, they're running FTTH.
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: Thanks for the pointers, Mikael. unfortunately, my Swedish is not much better than my Japanese... But it is a good start and I am sure I will find some sort of English description somewhere. Here is a cut/paste of the thing run thru google translate. I believe you'll get the meaning. This actually works, people do pay this amount of money to get connected. I believe they would in the US too, given the chance. - Connection villas Can I connect my house? For an answer ang your villa, please complete and submit an Expression of interest. It then goes into an order, provided that the fiber tableware can be connected! Here's how it works! During the period tjälfria is our excavation works in roads and public land for the siting of the optical fiber. Today we have a well-developed fiber network allowing for the vast majority living in Sollentuna to quickly connect their property, and thus have access to a wide range of services. We will contact you Once you have ordered the connection of broadband we will contact you to show where you are digging at the site, from our access point in the street to your house. Excavation of land From a designated point at land border, undermining you to the agreed point at the house's outer wall. Shafts shall be 4 dm deep and 1-2 dm wide along the entire route, and ends with a hole in the foundation. The shaft adds a conduit, as optical fiber to serve in. tube free download at our stores at Knistad farm road 12, Monday-Thursday at 07.30-10.45 and 12.00-15.00 Note: Digging shafts before conduit retrieved, so you know exactly the number of meter tubes you need. Do you want help with digging at the site and the siting of the pipes, you can contact our land contractor for cost data: Ponds Mountain Construction AB, tel. 08-92 02 40th Before you dig If you are going to dig into the ground, you must make sure that you do not dig any cables or pipes for electricity, broadband and heating. We will send you a fitter who find out where the pipes are. That way you can avoid digging of a pipe by mistake. Release are made on weekdays between 08.00 - 15.30 and must be notified at least three days in advance. Cabling is free. Remember that you may be held liable if you have not asked for cabling and undermining of any cables or pipes for electricity, broadband or remote heat! Backhoe course and put tubes in good time before we come to your area. Connecting in the house At the outlet in the house Drill a 12mm hole in the wall / foundation. The hole is drilled obliquely downward (about 45 degrees) from the inside out. This angle is important for optical fiber bend radius should not be too sharp. Need help with piercing, notify our supervisor when he visits you to discuss the excavation work. Connection of optical fiber When the plumbing and piercing are done, please let us know. We then pull up the fiber, and our engineers put a note in your mailbox to make an appointment for a connection. Inside the wall mounted switch to which you connect. This is also our transfer point for all services. Switch must be plugged into an electrical outlet nearby. Inside the house From the switch ensures you install the network cable to the rooms PC or TV to be connected in. You must use the cable type of Category 5 unshielded twisted pair network cable with 4 pairs of conductors and RJ45 connectors, EIA / TIA 568B. Ready for delivery Now you can order any of the services offered in Sollentuna Energi's broadband network. You can choose from several different ISPs, some of which also offer VoIP. When your supplier has informed us about your order, switched services normally within 10 working days. Information on service providers and prices can be found under the Internet link. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: Thanks for the pointers, Mikael. unfortunately, my Swedish is not much better than my Japanese... But it is a good start and I am sure I will find some sort of English description somewhere. Here is a cut/paste of the thing run thru google translate. I believe you'll get the meaning. This actually works, people do pay this amount of money to get connected. I believe they would in the US too, given the chance. Ay, there's the rub! The question is not if this can be done here in the US but, will it be done? Like many things, whether it is in 'Public Works' or 'Public Policy,' in the US, parties generally choose the easy/cheapest way out. There's no need to do too much. Planning/preparing/accounting for things ahead? What's that?Do not want to take this discussion (more than it already has) to the non-operational front.
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Another issue - how far does the technology support open access/infrastructure sharing/wholesaling? Not only are networks that get public funding likely to be expected to provide these, but there is evidence that they are important financially. Benoit Felten's presentation at eComm Europe suggested that the takerate and the presence of wholesale were the biggest sensitivities bearing on the pay off period for a FTTH deployment. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Very much it depends on the case. In price perspective Active Ethernet is cheaper (for the active equipment) for both CAPEX and OPEX. Also it is reacher in features. Just for comparison 2.5Gbit G-PON solution cost about the same as reasonable 10Gig FTTH active ethernet solution. If you do extremely cheap Active Ethernet with Ethernet BRAS you can go even 5-10 times cheaper than passive, and much more reacher on features. The fiber for Active Ethernet actually costs the same as the fiber for Passive Ethernet. You have the same amount of work to install it the fiber price difference is very small if you have 48 fibers than 12 for example. The number of splices you need to do in fiber for Active Ethernet is slightly higher but it is absolutely and fully compensated by the price of the PON splitter. So if you are looking for any of the price, stability, standartization (both G-PON and GEPON have many issues with the compatibility between the vendors), speed, feature richness, Active Ethernet always win. The best thing for Passive FTTH is written in its name. It is Passive, which means, you don't need to power it except in the subscriber's home. So if you have any issues with the power (or requirements for availability, that can not be reached cheaply because of reasons related to the power), then passive FTTH is your choice. In any other case Active is better. Delian On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Luke Marrott luke.marr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm wondering what everyones thoughts are in regards to FTTH using Active Ethernet or Passive. I work for a FTTH Provider that has done Active Ethernet on a few networks so I'm always biased in discussions, but I don't know anyone with experience in PON. I've read before that almost all PON technology is proprietary, locking you into a specific hardware vendor. However I think this is changing or has already changed, opening PON up for interoperability. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks in advance. :Luke Marrott
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Generally Ethernet itself support in the last years natively Openaccess. But first you need to answer to youself what type of Openness you want? Open Access on Layer3 level? As it is made by the ADSL L3 LLU? If so, then both Active and passive FTTH Ethernet are absolutley ready for it. Every Service provider is a single VLAN, DHCP snooping, ARP snooping (to enforce security) are enabled and that is. You can even do the same services as the ADSL providers, you can buy (only for central place, for service control, not for access) BRAS solution as Juniper MX or Ericsson SE1200 (or Alcatel or even the currently slow performing Cisco) and to have radius authentication per session and per vlan. You can even give to your service provides Virtual Logical Router (with its own administrative control) in MX or Logical Context (which is the same, but implemented in more scalable way) into the Ericsson SE1200. You can have integrated L3 Open Access solution from a vendors like Packet Front, but their solution is expensive per subscriber (in large scale) and performs well only on L3. Open Access on Layer2 level? This is the absolutely pure Open Access you can have. Pure Layer2 tunnels from the Service Provider to the subscriber's port. Then the service provider can do whatever it wants and provide L3 and L2 services in absolutely independent and transparent way. Active Ethernet is ready for this today. You can do 802.1ac/ad (Double VLAN Tagging) per port and have 16m combinations (ports) that you can transport transparently to your service providers. You can do it with very expensive equipment (as Cisco, Juniper, etc) or with even really cheap equipment (for about 5$ per port) as well. Ethernet today have many interesting carrier features supported as standards directly by IEEE. You can have security, encryption, control, bandwidh control (even on HQ), filtering, pure transparent transportation. The mac addresses and the VLAN IDs are not limitation anymore for years. You have even Ethernet SNMP, PING, Traceroute, service control. If you need some guides on this, I can tell you, but I don't think is necessary to get deeper on that right now. PON is relatively close to L2 open access. Most of the vendors are almost there where 802.1ac/ad standard is. So here the situation is relativley the same as in the active ethernet. Delian On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Alexander Harrowell a.harrow...@gmail.comwrote: Another issue - how far does the technology support open access/infrastructure sharing/wholesaling? Not only are networks that get public funding likely to be expected to provide these, but there is evidence that they are important financially. Benoit Felten's presentation at eComm Europe suggested that the takerate and the presence of wholesale were the biggest sensitivities bearing on the pay off period for a FTTH deployment.
RE: FTTH Active vs Passive
Running fiber in the sewers can lead to many very expensive problems for homeowners. This is so because some municipalities consider the lateral sewer line running from the main sewer line in the street to the homeowners' house the responsibility of the homeowner. If the lateral should get blocked in any way, it is the homeowners' responsibility to fix and/or replace it. Assuming the costs associated with digging a 30 foot long, 15 foot deep trench from the homeowner's property line to tie into the city sewer system can easily cost US $10,000.00 - $15,000.00. This is not usually covered by homeowners' insurance. -Original Message- From: Michael Holstein [mailto:michael.holst...@csuohio.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:34 AM To: Curtis Maurand Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: FTTH Active vs Passive I'd look more to what they're doing in Rochester, NY: http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network Run it in the sewers. The sewer system runs to every building and household in the municipality. No need to re-trench anything. Ahh .. the TISP : http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html Regards, Michael Holstein Cleveland State University
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the last mile? Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units? Any thoughts on good places to start for an english language speaker to learn about the Japanese broadband experience? not much help here. what ntt says is mostly gloss and some (miyakawa) runs on the ppt platform, not reality. randy
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Luke Marrott wrote: I'm wondering what everyones thoughts are in regards to FTTH using Active Ethernet or Passive. I work for a FTTH Provider that has done Active Ethernet on a few networks so I'm always biased in discussions, but I don't know anyone with experience in PON. Active is the way to go. Passive is merely a stepping stone on the way to active. Passive only makes sense (in some cases) if you are 1) fiber poor and 2) not doing a greenfield deployment. If you have the fiber to work with or if you are building a FTTH plant from scratch go with active. The only real proponents of PONs are the RBOCs who are exceedingly cheap, slow to react, and completely unable to think ahead (ie, putting in an abundance of fiber for future use instead of just enough to get by) and some MSOs who don't dread and loathe shared network mediums like CATV and PON (whereas those from a networking background would never ever pick such a technology). I've read before that almost all PON technology is proprietary, locking you into a specific hardware vendor. However I think this is changing or has already changed, opening PON up for interoperability. Can anyone confirm this? There are several actual PON standards out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network Few vendors will ever admit that they interop with another vendor's gear though. They don't want you to buy their optical switches (which have a small markup) and someone else's ONTs (which typically have a much greater markup). In some cases even though that adhere to the standards to a point they diverge and go proprietary for things like integrating voice or video into the system. That could cause management and/or support issues for you at some point in the life of the product. Personally I'd go with a vendor that offers the complete solution instead of piecing one together. PON has some popularity in MDUs. The splits are easy to manage because they're all in one location. Bandwidth needs are typically on the low end in MDUs due to a lack of businesses (bandwidth being a severe future-proofing problem for PON). PON's biggest limitations for us is the distance limitations. We're deploying FTTH in the rural countryside, not in a dense residential neighborhood. PON has very specific distance limitations for each split and cumulative across all splits that make rural deployments extremely difficult. The price difference between Active and PON is negligible at this point and in many cases cheaper for active. Go with active for FTTH. You won't regret it. Justin
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On 01/12/09 10:43 -0600, Justin Shore wrote: Active is the way to go. Passive is merely a stepping stone on the way to active. Passive only makes sense (in some cases) if you are 1) fiber poor and 2) not doing a greenfield deployment. If you have the fiber to work with or if you are building a FTTH plant from scratch go with active. The only real proponents of PONs are the RBOCs who are exceedingly cheap, slow to react, and completely unable to think ahead (ie, putting in an abundance of fiber for future use instead of just enough to get by) and some MSOs who don't dread and loathe shared network mediums like CATV and PON (whereas those from a networking background would never ever pick such a technology). Few vendors will ever admit that they interop with another vendor's gear though. They don't want you to buy their optical switches (which have a small markup) and someone else's ONTs (which typically have a much greater markup). In some cases even though that adhere to the standards to a point they diverge and go proprietary for things like integrating voice or video into the system. That could cause management and/or support issues for you at some point in the life of the product. Personally I'd go with a vendor that offers the complete solution instead of piecing one together. PON has some popularity in MDUs. The splits are easy to manage because they're all in one location. Bandwidth needs are typically on the low end in MDUs due to a lack of businesses (bandwidth being a severe future-proofing problem for PON). PON's biggest limitations for us is the distance limitations. We're deploying FTTH in the rural countryside, not in a dense residential neighborhood. PON has very specific distance limitations for each split and cumulative across all splits that make rural deployments extremely difficult. The price difference between Active and PON is negligible at this point and in many cases cheaper for active. Go with active for FTTH. You won't regret it. All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet is a good way to future proof your plant. However, there are some advantages to GPON - particularly if you're deploying high bandwidth video services. PON ONTs share 2.4Gb/s of bandwidth downstream, which means you can support more than a gig of video on each PON, if deploying in dense mode. Another big advantage is in CO equipment. A 4-PON blade in a cabinet is going to support on the order of 256 ONTs. -- Dan White
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.com wrote: Luke Marrott wrote: I'm wondering what everyones thoughts are in regards to FTTH using Active Ethernet or Passive. I work for a FTTH Provider that has done Active Ethernet on a few networks so I'm always biased in discussions, but I don't know anyone with experience in PON. Active is the way to go. Passive is merely a stepping stone on the way to active. Passive only makes sense (in some cases) if you are 1) fiber poor and 2) not doing a greenfield deployment. If you have the fiber to work with or if you are building a FTTH plant from scratch go with active. The only real proponents of PONs are the RBOCs who are exceedingly cheap, slow to react, and completely unable to think ahead (ie, putting in an abundance of fiber for future use instead of just enough to get by) and some MSOs who don't dread and loathe shared network mediums like CATV and PON (whereas those from a networking background would never ever pick such a technology). Justin, The suburban area where I live, mostly detached homes, has a service density of around 1500 to 2000 residences per square mile. Practically speaking, one or two dedicated fibers per residence at that density means you're not going to get a 5 mile radius from your powered equipment. Pi * 5^2 * 2000 residences * 2 strands per residence = 300,000 strands of fiber. So you're going to deploy powered equipment to one hell of a lot of non-customer field locations. Since most of those locations are not carefully conditioned computer rooms, you're going to pay more for ruggedized equipment too. In that scenario, PON cuts the number of field locations in which you have to maintain non-CPE powered equipment by an order of magnitude or more. Perhaps even to zero. This improves system reliability and yields a rather substantial savings on maintenance cost over time. Pi * 5^2 * 2000 residences * 1 strand / 16 residences per strand = 9,800 strands of fiber, a much more manageable number. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Dan White wrote: However, there are some advantages to GPON - particularly if you're deploying high bandwidth video services. PON ONTs share 2.4Gb/s of bandwidth downstream, which means you can support more than a gig of video on each PON, if deploying in dense mode. You don't need to supply more than a gig per household, so active gige (or 100meg) is enough to feed the household with their broadcast video needs. So yes, you will need 10GE to the node and 100/1000 to each household do this this kind of video. PON only makes sense with low take-rates and high per-truckroll costs when I did the business case last time. Another big advantage is in CO equipment. A 4-PON blade in a cabinet is going to support on the order of 256 ONTs. But you lose out on the CPEs, at least historically these were much more expensive than the 100FX/TX media converters available in the market. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: You don't need to supply more than a gig per household, 640K ought to be enough for anybody. (oft mis-attributed to Bill Gates) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used dialup, you had suggested that ISPs would be putting in gigabit services to homes, people would have laughed. Yet today, here we are talking about gig feeds. I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10 years from now... jc
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, JC Dill wrote: If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used dialup, you had suggested that ISPs would be putting in gigabit services to homes, people would have laughed. Yet today, here we are talking about gig feeds. I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10 years from now... First commercial gige service available to residential here in Sweden was a few years after 2000 (be it only a few houses), I'd say at least 10% of swedish households can buy at least 100/10 service for less than 50USD a month and it's been like that for 5+ years (before that it was 10/10 for the same money). Active ethernet means you upgrade CO and CPE and you can do whatever you need on the fiber strand to that household, whereas PON you need to upgrade everything that shares that passive stretch sharing 64-128 households. Star networks (=active ethernet in the FTTH world) is the way to go, it's superior in the vast majority of use cases. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Once upon a time, Byron Hicks bhi...@ots.utsystem.edu said: 4k video feeds (the new High Def): compressed: 1Gb/s ?? Current over-the-air HD (at a max of 1080i) is up to 19 megabits per second (and most don't run it that high). Most cable systems compress it more. 4k video is roughly 8 times the pixels than 1080i, but is typically going to be compressed with better algorithms (MPEG4 is roughly half the size of MPEG2), which would mean 4k video (at TV quality) would be around 100 megabits per second. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10 years from now... 100% of it (if you let us). Cheers, Michael Holstein Cleveland State University
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
These were the numbers presented at an Internet2 meeting about the 4k testing happening between UCSD and UW. I'm not sure what compression algorithm they were using for the test. On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote: Once upon a time, Byron Hicks bhi...@ots.utsystem.edu said: 4k video feeds (the new High Def): compressed: 1Gb/s ?? Current over-the-air HD (at a max of 1080i) is up to 19 megabits per second (and most don't run it that high). Most cable systems compress it more. 4k video is roughly 8 times the pixels than 1080i, but is typically going to be compressed with better algorithms (MPEG4 is roughly half the size of MPEG2), which would mean 4k video (at TV quality) would be around 100 megabits per second. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- Byron L. Hicks University of Texas System 512-377-9857 AIM: byronhicks
RE: FTTH Active vs Passive
If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used dialup, you had suggested that ISPs would be putting in gigabit services to homes, people would have laughed. Yet today, here we are talking about gig feeds. I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10 years from now... s/be using/have access to/ One could make the argument that when we were doing dial-up over POTS the % utilization vs port speed was higher than today with packet switching to the curb. People have been lamenting the lack of for-profit apps that will actually each up these 100+ mb/s residential pipes (the killer app). One could further argue that the talk of gigabit pipes to the home has been ushered in by the cost-effectiveness of gigabit ethernet over SONET or other technologies and this is why we are seeing such a massive increase in the port speeds to customers. As a percentage of pipe available (discounting things like kiddie's using Torrent), I wouldn't be surprised to see that percentage drop. (Residential broadband folks chime in please). Deepak
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Dan White wrote: All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet is a good way to future proof your plant. However, there are some advantages to GPON - particularly if you're deploying high bandwidth video services. PON ONTs share 2.4Gb/s of bandwidth downstream, which means you can support more than a gig of video on each PON, if deploying in dense mode. That's true but I'd hope it wouldn't be needed. A single residence wouldn't get anywhere near needing 1Gbps of video bandwidth. Even with MPEG2 and 50 HD STBs @ 19Mbps that would still leave 50Mbps for Internet. I don't know of anyone needing that much BW for video. PON does present the possibility of doing and RF Overlay though which makes traditional RF possible. That's something our CATV guy talks about often. The RF wavelength gets spun off at the NID and outputted as traditional RF on coax. I've heard of similar things with limited WDM from the egress side of the active Ethernet switch to the NID but I haven't seen any in production. Another big advantage is in CO equipment. A 4-PON blade in a cabinet is going to support on the order of 256 ONTs. This is something that I don't think many people have dealt with before. In our rural Active FTTH environment we're not hubbing all the fiber out of COs. Most of it hubs back to cabinets on the side of the road and from there gets put on an Ethernet ring which ultimately terminates in the COs. Because of this while we may have tens of thousands of strands out in the field we don't have anywhere near that amount in a single cabinet or CO. A lot of people think that Active FTTH means home-running ever strand back to a single CO and that's not generally the case. LECs usually deploy a distributed model with aggregation out in the field in cabinets or huts and then backhaul that back to the COs. This also means that fewer individual fiber ports get served out of any one location. So a cabinet might have 3-4 blades in individual chassis or it might have a 13-slot chassis with as many slots populated to meet the demand. It seems to work well. I see what you mean though with the port density and space savings. I think most deployments manage to avoid the hassle but I can see where extremely dense locations could run into trouble. Good points Justin
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote: All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet is a good way to future proof your plant. I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber. Drive Slow, Paul Wall
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
I'm wondering why despite all this comparatively magical speed increase we have seen over the last decade, with 10 times better on the horizon, we the customer ever get a 1:1 speed ratio? -- Regards, James ;) Charles de Gaulle - The better I get to know men, the more I find myself loving dogs. - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/charles_de_gaulle.html
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On 01/12/09 14:33 -0500, Paul Wall wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote: All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet is a good way to future proof your plant. I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber. In the case of PON, WDM is used to dedicate wavelengths on the strand for different purposes - ingress, egress, RF overlay (as someone else mentioned), TDM voice etc. You could deploy 2 or 3 strands and get more bandwidth to the customer, using perhaps less expensive hardware, or you could maintain fewer strands in the ground and depend on equipment manufactures to maintain an adequate growth in bandwidth capabilities. Neither approach is going to work for everyone. -- Dan White
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 02:33:20PM -0500, Paul Wall wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote: All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet is a good way to future proof your plant. I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber. Drive Slow, Paul Wall nifty... my own fiber pair - and I'll run 32 lambdas on each... (can I has kewl new rare-earth glass ... so I can run 100G per lambda? - plz?) --bill
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
You could deploy 2 or 3 strands and get more bandwidth to the customer, using perhaps less expensive hardware, or you could maintain fewer strands in the ground and depend on equipment manufactures to maintain an adequate growth in bandwidth capabilities. Neither approach is going to work for everyone. -- Dan White At my previous job we were deploying a hybrid system - a mix of active and PON depending on the requirements of the customer. For the active systems it wasn't homerun fiber back to the main CO - we had a nice ring of fiber to key locations in the City and then we would place a ped where the spurs would connect to. Top that off with a CISCO Wireless Mesh overlay and no matter what speed and mobility you needed you could get it somehow... Our only limit (at the time I left) was upstream to the Internet. --Scott
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On 01/12/09 20:06, Byron Hicks wrote: These were the numbers presented at an Internet2 meeting about the 4k testing happening between UCSD and UW. I'm not sure what compression algorithm they were using for the test. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/09/super_hi_vision.html The Italian broadcaster, RAI, demonstrated satellite broadcasting of SHV at 140 Mbit/s from Turin to IBC. Super Hi-Vision has a resolution of 4320x7860 (and also carries 22.2 channel sound). IIRC the video codec used was Dirac. From the Dirac website:- In our first experiments, we managed to get excellent picture quality at 128Mb/s, which sounds huge but is equivalent to just 4Mb/s for HDTV.
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Paul Wall wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote: All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet is a good way to future proof your plant. I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber. I'll settle with fiber within 2km of my home right now. If people have recommendations for FTTH/GPON/Whatnot let me know. Right now, I'm thinking stuff like this is cool: http://www.provantage.com/zyxel-mc1000sfp~7ZYXS00C.htm I suspect one could do interesting things with BX10/LX10 SFPs. (Likely not with cisco though). - Jared
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
actually, the killer here is PMTU... there is almost no way to effectively utilize the BW when the MTU is locked to 1500 bytes. and the reality, e.g. ntt b-flets, is often pppoe v4-only, which is lower. randy
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
Now just imagine that people inside the big firewall could tell you how they engineered multi-gig FTTTVs. At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking about. The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no matter how crowded the vendor meet is. There are pockets of isolated/niche success and its great to see technology implemented in such ways, RFCs being drafted, etc., but jeez guys, the real issue at stake here is how in the hell we are all going to work past the bureaucratic constraints of our arguably humble positions to transparently superimpose something that will enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified infrastructure. This post in itself obviates our incapacity to handle our own infrastructure, and while I believe discussing this is of the utmost importance I have to point out, first and foremost, that the highest priority is a level playing field. I know at least some of you can really understand that and I hope it drive some of your sleeping points home a bit so you can wake up in the morning and get something right. -Will Ok I will never post here again. Gnight... On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: actually, the killer here is PMTU... there is almost no way to effectively utilize the BW when the MTU is locked to 1500 bytes. and the reality, e.g. ntt b-flets, is often pppoe v4-only, which is lower. randy
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking about. The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no matter how crowded the vendor meet is. There are pockets of isolated/niche success and its great to see technology implemented in such ways, RFCs being drafted, etc., but jeez guys, the real issue at stake here is how in the hell we are all going to work past the bureaucratic constraints of our arguably humble positions to transparently superimpose something that will enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified infrastructure. This post in itself obviates our incapacity to handle our own infrastructure, and while I believe discussing this is of the utmost importance I have to point out, first and foremost, that the highest priority is a level playing field. I know at least some of you can really understand that and I hope it drive some of your sleeping points home a bit so you can wake up in the morning and get something right. life can be simple. i moved to a first world country, japan. $35/mo for real 100/100, and i could get faster, just don't need it for a couple of laptops. hope y'all are having fun in duopoly jail. randy
