nanog mailing list archives
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 18:35:07 -0800
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 09:28:06PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote:
I'm not saying that you have to, but that's the most efficient and resilient (both of those are important right?) way of arranging the gear. The exact loop length from the shelves to the end users is up to you and in certain circumstances (generally really compact areas) you can simply home run everyone. Most muni networks don't look that way though because while town centers are generally compact where people (especially the better subdivisions) live is away from the center of town in the US. I can't give you a lot insight on your specific area since I don't know it, but those are the general rules.
If the goal is the minimize the capital outlay of a greenfield build, your model can be more efficient, depending on the geography covered. Basically you're assuming that the active electronics to make a ring are cheaper than building high count fiber back to a central point. There are geographies where that is both true, and not true. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're model is cheaper for a majority of builds. On the other hand, I am not nearly as interested in minimizing the up front capital cost. It's an issue, sure, but I care much more about the total lifecycle cost. I'd rather spend 20% more up front to end up with 20-80% lower costs over 50 years. My argument is not that high count fiber back to a central location is cheaper in absolute, up front dollars, but that it's at worst a minimal amount more and will have neglegable additonal cost over a 40-80 year service life. By contrast, the ring topology you suggest may be slightly less expensive up front, but will require the active parts that make up the ring to be swapped out every 7-20 years. I believe that will lead to greater lifecycle cost; and almost importantly impeed development of new services as the existing gear ends up incompatable with newer technologies. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?, (continued)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Scott Helms (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Jay Ashworth (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Owen DeLong (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Scott Helms (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Owen DeLong (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Scott Helms (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Jay Ashworth (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Scott Helms (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Jay Ashworth (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Scott Helms (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Leo Bicknell (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? david peahi (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Scott Helms (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Leo Bicknell (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Scott Helms (Feb 02)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Leo Bicknell (Feb 03)
- muni L1 example (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) John Osmon (Feb 03)
- Re: muni L1 example (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) Scott Helms (Feb 03)
- Re: muni L1 example (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) John Osmon (Feb 03)
- Re: muni L1 example (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) Scott Helms (Feb 03)
- Re: muni L1 example (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) John Osmon (Feb 03)