North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo?

  • From: Hannigan, Martin
  • Date: Fri Apr 15 08:05:55 2005

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 6:34 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo?
> 
> 
> 
> > you'll never get better redundancy than having more than 
> one carrier.
> 
> On the contrary, you get better redundancy by sticking to 
> one carrier and making sure that they really provide
> separacy though the entire span of the circuit. If you
> have two carriers running fibre to yoiur building down
> the same conduit, then you do NOT have separacy and as
> a result, the redundancy is not there.

Which is the case in about 99% of the commercial buildings
providers serve. Unless you're designed as a carrier hotel
or a colo (even some colos aren't diverse entrance facility),
this is the de-facto standard. The reason why is carriers
et. al. must pay for conduit access to a building and it 
impacts pricing, especially if you're not servicing a huge
load of service to the building. From the entrace facilities,
carriers typically also pay riser conduit fees. 

Service delivery inside of the prem is insidiously complicated
unless you understand a little RE and how OSP is linked to
the ISP (in side plant).

> 
> Of course, you can get separacy with two carriers but
> it is generally more work to verify that the two companies
> do not share fibre or conduit or tunnels.

Im a metro loop, they are almost certainly going to share
the same path. It is less certain that they will share a
conduit. This is standard if you have the route diversity,
which is why you want the provider diversity to make it 
all work. 

Hope that helps.

-M<