RE: [EFM] EFM Requirements
This discussion about fiber to the home or to the curb is an interesting
diversion, but is not what the work group should be focusing on.
The focus should be on Ethernet over existing telephone company copper
wires. That is what we, the service providers, want to buy.
In addition, the service providers have stated that a longer reach such as
10,000 feet is needed at a reasonable data rate such as 6 Mbps to 10 Mbps.
The ideal solution would be to server 80 percent of subscribers with NO
fiber in the loop.
From: Bob Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 4:00 AM
To: Sukanta ganguly; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM Requirements
Any active switch that serves multiple (business) subscribers is going to
need to be resilient. This needs to be reflected in the business case
I am not convinced that the raw fiber plant requirement for EPON is any
different to that for p2p in the real world. In dense areas there is logic
in co-locating splitters and fanning out the tail circuits. The only
difference is passive or active equipment at the 'hub'. Both topologies look
like physical stars. Note that a lot of real-world SONET / SDH rings also
look like physical stars too.
Can carriers comment on this please?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Sukanta
> Sent: 19 August 2001 17:06
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: 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!
> > http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger