This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Problems 741 options. Be warned that these are rather biased views. The assumptions made sig- nificantly impact the outcome, and these assumptions are usually biased toward supporting the products offered by the vendor doing the study. Network design methods and considerations are in [Sim08]. The various options for supporting IP over WDM have been explored in many papers; for instance, [Mae00] provides a relative cost analysis. See [PCW + 00, Coo00, OSF00, PCK00] for a sampling of papers related to metro WDM economics. [DSGW00, Dos01] explore the value proposition behind ultra-long-haul WDM systems. The National Fiber Optic Engineers’ Conference usually has many papers on these topics. Problems 13.1 Imagine that you are a planner for a long-haul carrier planning to deploy an IP over WDM network. Your job is to make the right technology and vendor choice for your network. You are given the following information. The initial requirement is to deploy 20 Gb/s of capacity between two nodes. You anticipate that this capacity will grow to 80 Gb/s in a year and over a few years grow to 320 Gb/s. You have a choice of several WDM systems from different vendors with the following prices and capabilities: Vendor A B C Number of channels 80 128 32 Bit rate per channel OC-192 OC-48 OC-192 Distance between regenerators 640 km 1920 km 1920 km Amplifier spacing 80 km 80 km 80 km OLT common equipment $40,000 $43,000 $60,000 Transponder $10,000 $5,000 $16,000 Amplifier $30,000 $20,000 $25,000 Assume that the common equipment prices for the optical line terminals include any amplifiers if needed. One transponder is needed for each channel at each end of the link. Once the distance between regenerators is exceeded, the signals need to bethe link....
View Full Document
- Spring '09
- Multiplexing, Wavelength-division multiplexing, Transponder, common equipment