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

Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements


It seems we have a major misunderstanding. I'm not advocating any new
copper drops. I believe that Vladimir's note, which I responded to, was
not advocating new copper drops for the first/last 0.5 mile as well.
This is what Vladimir referred to as the "copper tail". The copper tail
connects to the residence/business on one end and fiber on the other.

The ONLY issue my response addressed was whether the fiber architecture
0.5 miles away from the residence/business was PtP or PON. It is at the
copper/fiber juncture that E/O conversion is obviously required. I
further assume that the bandwidth requirements at this 0.5 mile central
point are such that high bandwidth technologies such as 1000BASE-X or
even 10GBASE-X make more sense than PON.

I do like the idea of FTTH, but I'm being practical and noting that if
the fiber gets to 0.5 miles of the home that high enough bandwidths can
be achieved. 

By "more scalable" I mean that a PtP fiber architecture is more scalable
than PON. I note that one can deploy existing cost effective technology
such as PtP 1000BASE-X and achieve 1 Gbps throughput. I expect that the
relative cost of achieving the same throughput with PON would run two
orders or magnitude or so more.

I hope this helps.

Best Regards,
ramu 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
Richard Taborek Sr.                     Intel Corporation
XAUI Sherpa                    Intel Communications Group
3101 Jay Street, Suite 110         Optical Products Group
Santa Clara, CA 95054           Santa Clara Design Center
408-496-3423                                     JAY1-101
Cell: 408-832-3957          mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
Fax: 408-486-9783