From: Mikael Abrahamsson (no email)
Date: Thu Dec 13 2007 - 00:31:17 EST
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Link budget information on page 4, here:
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/reach/Matsumoto_r1_1207.pdf
> Relative cost estimates on page 5.
(totally disregarding the HSSG policy of talking cost and not price here)
If the cost estimate has any bearing on actual end-user purchase price,
then I would say that the 3-4km reach alternative makes sense. Having a
10km reach alternative costing 60% of 40km reach optics just doesn't make
sense. Today we live in a world where 10km reach optics is ~1/4 the price
of 40-80km optics, what's being said in that table is that the 40km reach
optics cost 2.1x of the 3km one. The 40km optics would cost 1.6x the 10km
one.
Since cost of keeping spares and considering the operational expense of
bringing up links with beforementioned bad connectors etc, it might even
be rational to just go with 40km optics at this cost difference level.
Different optics variants need to have a distinct price difference,
otherwise they're just complicating things. Otoh if we need attenuators
for 40km optics on 5km links then that's a complicating factor as well.
That's not been needed before.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email:
|
|
|