nanog mailing list archives
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
From: William Herrin <herrin-nanog () dirtside com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:33:03 -0500
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Justin Shore <justin () justinshore com> wrote:
Luke Marrott wrote:I'm wondering what everyones thoughts are in regards to FTTH using Active Ethernet or Passive. I work for a FTTH Provider that has done Active Ethernet on a few networks so I'm always biased in discussions, but I don't know anyone with experience in PON.Active is the way to go. Passive is merely a stepping stone on the way to active. Passive only makes sense (in some cases) if you are 1) fiber poor and 2) not doing a greenfield deployment. If you have the fiber to work with or if you are building a FTTH plant from scratch go with active. The only real proponents of PONs are the RBOCs who are exceedingly cheap, slow to react, and completely unable to think ahead (ie, putting in an abundance of fiber for future use instead of just enough to get by) and some MSOs who don't dread and loathe shared network mediums like CATV and PON (whereas those from a networking background would never ever pick such a technology).
Justin, The suburban area where I live, mostly detached homes, has a service density of around 1500 to 2000 residences per square mile. Practically speaking, one or two dedicated fibers per residence at that density means you're not going to get a 5 mile radius from your powered equipment. Pi * 5^2 * 2000 residences * 2 strands per residence = 300,000 strands of fiber. So you're going to deploy powered equipment to one hell of a lot of non-customer field locations. Since most of those locations are not carefully conditioned computer rooms, you're going to pay more for ruggedized equipment too. In that scenario, PON cuts the number of field locations in which you have to maintain non-CPE powered equipment by an order of magnitude or more. Perhaps even to zero. This improves system reliability and yields a rather substantial savings on maintenance cost over time. Pi * 5^2 * 2000 residences * 1 strand / 16 residences per strand = 9,800 strands of fiber, a much more manageable number. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive, (continued)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Delian Delchev (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Fletcher Kittredge (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Robert Mathews (OSIA) (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Randy Bush (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 02)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Dan White (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Scott Brown/Clack/ESD (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive bmanning (Dec 01)
- Re: FTTH Active vs Passive Jared Mauch (Dec 01)