Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements

  A all Fiber architecture will be simpler in the
overall aspect but would be a extremely expensive
deployment. So wo should have some sort of E/O deliver
in the last/first half mile.

Rich, Vladimir,
  An active architecture within the field isn general
is not a good idea, but actual scenario may digress
from generality. Some switching is required, no doubt.
I haven't read any deeper discussion on the switching
complexity (Maybe I missed some of the discussions in
the past.) I also did not understand the assumption of
the last/first 0.5 mile being more scalable than PON.
What kind of scalability is required at the last/first
mile. If you are talking about 1000baseX being
distributed to the real consumer or to then the amount
of bandwidth that is to be switched is fairly small
(i.e. in comparison to the 10G portion). The switching
components as far as scaleability and complexity is
concerned will be very different and hence, atleast
from my point of view is a very different discussion. 
  I think, and you folks may help me understand it
better, it is not a good idea to come up with a
generic one switching logic which can be applied to
100base-X/1000base-X and 10G network. 
  I would be extremely interested in discussing the
active component network on different scale of
operation as opposed to a PON as far as cost/ease of
deployment and maintainence, complexity etc is

My two cents.

(Sukanta Ganguly, An independent view)   
--- ramu <ramu_raskan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rich, not sure I understand the logic behind some of
> your points, but the simple answer appears to be
> that it requires new trenching for the new copper
> drops, which will never fly. If I misunderstand,
> please elaborate.
> I don't quite get you conclusion: 'since E/O is
> required, 1KBaseX is significantly more cost
> effective, scalable, and simpler than PON.'
> If E/O is required in the field it can't be PON.
> Whether it is significantly more cost effective
> cannot be judged without detailed designs of each.
> Whether it is more scalable I guess depends on your
> definition. Simpler is hard to imagine, but again
> may depend on definition. If you could elaborate
> your view I would be interested.
> Since you are suggesting an active architecture with
> new electronics in the field, I for one would
> welcome a discussion of such a network architecture
> that had fiber for the last thousand feet. No one
> has addressed that at all to my recollection. None
> of the architectues is perfect in all respects so an
> all-fiber active architecture undoubtedly has some
> advantages. 
> Vladimir,
> It would seem that the most cost effective approach
> for a 10 mile EFM
> solution would be to use standard point-to-point
> 1000BASE-X or 10GBASE-X
> for the first 9.5 miles and then a 0.5 mile copper
> tail for the
> first/last half mile. Since E/O conversion is
> required at the 9.5 mile
> mark, standard 1000BASE-X or 10GBASE-X technology
> would be significantly
> more cost effective, scalable and simpler that PON
> at that point. I
> expect that there will be switching equipment
> located at the upstream
> (10 miles away) side, negating any benefit of a PON
> split at that point. 
> Please tell me what's wrong with this picture?
> P.S. I understand that this does not address the
> rural market portrayed
> by Frank Miller in this thread, but neither does
> PON.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Rich
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!

Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger