Re: Routed optical networks

[Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>]

On 5/3/23 11:10, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:

> You are right. My message was pretty much geared toward incumbents.
>
> But the majority of the access/aggregation is in their possessions, 
> isn’t it?

Generally, I'd say yes.

But to the OP's survey, the incumbents also have the majority 
installations of copper, and are least likely to use MPLS all the way 
into the Access. They would more typically use 802.1Q or Q-in-Q.

Smaller operators green-fielding Access networks will rely mostly on 
fibre (particularly GPON) and MPLS all the way into the Access.

It's just that FTTx services are growing at a much faster rate than 
copper-based services are. Depending on the market, it may not always be 
the incumbent witnessing this growth, although when they do finally get 
their act together, they can make up for lost time rather quickly.


> They typically have ducts that were huge for copper that is already 
> extracted.
>
> One more fiber cable would be easy.

Agreed.


> Agree that for competitive carriers DWDM would be more often needed.
>
> Even for competitive carriers, it makes sense to evaluate the cost to 
> put fiber into the duct of incumbents.
>
> Especially because in some countries the price would be regulated.
>
> It would solve the problem forever – no need for the DWDM speed upgrade.

Well, the only issue with that is that some markets make it more 
difficult to re-open up the roads for several years. Some worse than 
others. In such a case, DWDM is your best option.


> I am calling to just not forget to evaluate this option too. Reminder: 
> dark fiber is the best technical solution, for sure.

In general, most operators, regardless of size, will prefer dark fibre 
as a first option, especially for short spans like in the metro. But of 
course, real life is vastly different.

Mark.