[AusNOG] Simon Hackett's presentation from Comms Day yesterday - NBN fibre on copper prices

[Beeson, Ayden]

Now this is where my knowledge of physics and how these optical splitters work starts to get shaky so correct me if I'm wrong here but:

The splitter breaks out the wavelengths and then sends them down the correct fibre, giving it an incorrect wavelength back through it to the upstream would just result in that wavelength being refracted wrong and most likely just filtered out?

The laser pointer is an interesting one, theoretically you get enough power down there and you could damage the optic at the other end or cause an error-disable etc.

Though it'd just affect your street and you're only really inconveniencing you and your neighbours, repeat offenses get you billed for damage / disconnected I guess?

Thanks,
Ayden Beeson


-----Original Message-----
From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan Thorpe
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013 11:42 AM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Simon Hackett's presentation from Comms Day yesterday - NBN fibre on copper prices

While I strongly support the idea of users being able to have their own certified GPON NTD, it does raise an interesting point about the potential for abuse and interference with GPON in general.

What happens if someone directs a laser pointer (at approximately the correct wavelength) down a GPON fibre interface?
What stops people from using WDM equipment or simply an optical transceiver at a different wavelength to "steal" wavelengths that the splitter can distribute between people on the same splitter?

-----Original Message-----
From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul Brooks
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013 12:45 AM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Simon Hackett's presentation from Comms Day yesterday - NBN fibre on copper prices

On 21/07/2013 1:06 PM, John Edwards wrote:
> I think this argument is a distraction when compared to the costs of a FTTH network.
> Today there are millions of Australian mobile subscribers bringing
> their own CPE to a data network on a shared medium that has a much
> greater surface area than 31 neighbours, and everyone seems quite
> content, even preferring this situation over the certainty of a fixed line.
I'm not sure its comparable - a rogue mobile handset can still only block out a single channel, other handsets in the immediate area will be using slightly different frequencies to transmit and receive on, as allocated by the signalling. if the rogue handset decided to ignore the frequency required by the basestation and used a different channel, its unlikely to affect more than a few handsets/calls in the immediate area. Plus, if it *was* doing a broad-spectrum transmission and blocking a large number of calls, its battery would soon be flat.

> I am pretty sure the OLT can do something about this in 2013.
Nope - upstream on GPON every terminal transmits upstream on precisely the same frequency, and the whole system relies on each one keeping to its timeslot so that only a single terminal's upstream laser is active at any moment. One rogue ONT activating its upstream laser out-of-sequence or on permanently will stomp over all upstream comms from every other terminal on that splitter, blinding the OLT receiver - and there's nothing the OLT can do about it.

The reason certification of ADSL CPE wasn't kept up is that a malfunctioning ADSL modem only affects that customer and its dedicated DSLAM port - if your modem is cactus, it doesn't hurt anyone but yourself, and it can't see anyone else's traffic so there aren't the same security concerns. The security concerns with user-subverted GPON CPE are significantly greater as each CPE sees every packet destined to all the other CPE on the PON.

P.


_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Charles Sturt University

| ALBURY-WODONGA | BATHURST | CANBERRA | DUBBO | GOULBURN | MELBOURNE | ONTARIO | ORANGE | PORT MACQUARIE | SYDNEY | WAGGA WAGGA |

LEGAL NOTICE
This email (and any attachment) is confidential and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not copy, distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any confidentiality is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery. Email should be checked for viruses and defects before opening. Charles Sturt University (CSU) does not accept liability for viruses or any consequence which arise as a result of this email transmission. Email communications with CSU may be subject to automated email filtering, which could result in the delay or deletion of a legitimate email before it is read at CSU. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily those of CSU.

Charles Sturt University in Australia  http://www.csu.edu.au  The Grange Chancellery, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst NSW Australia 2795  (ABN: 83 878 708 551; CRICOS Provider Numbers: 00005F (NSW), 01947G (VIC), 02960B (ACT)). TEQSA Provider Number: PV12018

Charles Sturt University in Ontario  http://www.charlessturt.ca 860 Harrington Court, Burlington Ontario Canada L7N 3N4  Registration: www.peqab.ca

Consider the environment before printing this email.

Disclaimer added by CodeTwo Exchange Rules 2007
http://www.codetwo.com