Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Scott Helms khelms at zcorum.com
Sat Feb 2 20:07:41 UTC 2013


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 <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at 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
--------------------------------



More information about the NANOG mailing list