[Bloat] 22 seconds til bloat on gfiber?

[Benjamin Cronce]

Sorry to side track

1:1 split bandwidth wise, still a 1:16 or whatever fiber split. Each port
can handle 40Gb/s, which is 32 lambdas of 1.25Gb/s, each customer getting
their own lambda. The ONT can either be WDM-PON or GPON with an inline
filter. A Google Fiber engineer actually had this in his blog a long while
back, talking about their design and the "dedicated" aspect of an unshared
GPON. PON can only handle about a 32 split before the signal strength gets
too low toe be practical. If each group of customers shared a lambda, they
would need too many split or repeaters, which is more impractical.

According to Sonic.Net, infrastructure and transit only constitutes about
1%-2% of the cost of being an ISP. May as well pony up for the best
infrastructure to reduce operational costs, which is where the bulk of the
cost of being an ISP rests. Repeaters and excess splits increase
operational costs.

I'm not entirely sure which part you mean "impractical". I actually have a
dedicated self-healing fiber loop from my home to my ISP's CO. $52.74/mo
after taxes.Well... $21.09/mo for the promo, and unbundled. Once at the CO,
it plugs into a patch panel where it then feeds into a splitter and into a
GPON port, but is otherwise dedicated back to the CO. The main benefit of
PON is the incredibly high density chassis. Not to mention a single WDM-PON
port consumes about 2x the power of a single 1Gb/1Gb active Ethernet port,
but can handle up to 32 ONTs and 40Gb/40Gb of bandwidth. Very power
efficient.

Google Fiber goes the route of fiber huts, while they're not absolutely
required, it's probably a good idea when covering a large area. There is
some very high density fiber bundles you can purchase, 144 strands of fiber
in the thickness of a pencil. If you ran that out to the normal size of a
conduit, you're getting into the 100k strands per conduit range, assuming
perfect packing density.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jan Ceuleers <jan.ceuleers at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 25/10/16 00:10, Benjamin Cronce wrote:
> > WDM-PON, giving each customer their own lambda of bandwidth. Effectively
> > a 1:1 split.
>
> Not quite. All it means is that multiple PONs coexist on the same
> outside plant, each on a different wavelength, and each serving multiple
> end-users. Allows for higher densities.
>
> What you suggest could be done but would quickly become impractical.
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20161025/0920988b/attachment-0002.html>