110 likes | 196 Views
Initial Design of the TFN Regional Fiber Network. The Quilt Optical Workshop June 22, 2004 pschopis@oar.net. Topics. First Cut Defining Mission Buy or Build Getting your Ducks in a row - Which Vendor Tipping Points. First Cut. Everyone is doing it Is there a solid business case?
E N D
Initial Design of the TFN Regional Fiber Network The Quilt Optical Workshop June 22, 2004 pschopis@oar.net
Topics • First Cut • Defining Mission • Buy or Build • Getting your Ducks in a row - Which Vendor • Tipping Points
First Cut • Everyone is doing it • Is there a solid business case? • What are the costs of provisioned services vs. owning your own fiber plant • Does it fit within scope of primary mission • Does it serve the primary stake holders in your community? • We have 91 member institutions • 10 I2 members • 25 SEGP
Defining Mission • So what do you want this thing to do? • Reduce long term costs • It appears that long term costs can be contained by making large upfront capital investment • Allow dedicated light paths through regional fabric • Research community believes that Lambda based service provides resource that other mechanisms don’t • Allow interaction with other Gigapops and entities in a dedicated fashion (HOPI?) • Problem inter vendor compatibility
Buy or Build? • Rule of thumb: It costs 50K in urban environment and 40K per mile in rural • Based on this Ohio could have built 84 miles urban or 105 miles rural • We bought (IRU) 1600 miles for ~$4,200,000 e.g. about 2625 (Average price) • Primary Wiltel and AEP • Others Qwest, AFS, Buckeye Telcom, and CityNet
Getting Ducks in A Row • TFN uses SBC as integrator • Get the target off our back • Primarily looked at Nortel vs Cisco • We did talk to other vendors • SBC’s staff seemed fairly objective • We require production service e.g. we are a little reluctant to go to far out of the box • Due to size of state and budget went with Cisco ONS 15454
Tipping Points • Nortel • Primary caveat too expensive and lack of flexibility • Went with Cisco Transponder (G.709) based service • Good - Less expensive in short term; uses FEC for greater reach; leverage Layer 2&3 for resiliency • Bad - adding Sonet or RPR later adds cost to that service • Going with Cisco has caveats • They insist on providing complete solution
General Principles • We used full 15454 implementation • Used the AMP and that go into 15454 • Makes management uniform • Makes certain aspects of sparing easier • We over engineered by 4% to 10% for degradation • Accounts for aging fiber (aerial) • Accounts for fiber cuts • Constrained only by fiscal considerations