Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jason Baugher jason at thebaughers.com
Sat Feb 9 14:05:44 UTC 2013


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

Anyone here doing or know someone doing 4-1 or 8-1 splits, in a typical
American town? I believe most people were talking about areas <50000
population.

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

> Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
> >> Let's assume 4:1 concentration with PON.
> >
> > Why on earth would we assume that when industry standard is 16 or 32?
>
> That is because additional 4:1 concentration is usually at CO,
> which does not contribute to reduce the number of fibers in a
> trunk cable.
>
> > 16 is a safe number.
>
> Do you mean a splitter in field should be shared by 16
> subscribers?
>
> Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail,
> total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times
> more than the trunk cable length.
>
> Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON.
>
> OTOH, if concentration is 2:1 or less, it is, again, obvious that
> SS is better than PON, because of extra complexity of PON.
>
> So, 4:1 is the safe number to obfuscate lack of merit of PON.
>
> If you can read Japanese or FTTH is serious business of you
> worth hiring a translator of your own, you can find average
> number of subscribers sharing a splitter in field is 3.68,
> a little less than 4, from:
>
>         http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/COLUMN/20080619/308665/
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list