Are there any upcoming RJ45 like Industry standard Fibre Optical Connector?

[ksec]

So one day all Router could take Fibre for Wan instead of the current Fibre Modem + Router Setup.

Are there any upcoming standard for that? Or are there any technical hurdles to get pass?

I guess for consumer level connection the future is wireless. With 802.11ax it could reach real world 1Gbps+ on a common 2x2 Antenna setup.

 

[Railgun]

Like LC or MTRJ?

It's not the physical connections that are an issue.

 

[brshoemak]

It seems like he's talking about a network where an ISP drops you a fiber line that is directly connected to to a fiber switch at the ISP - with no consumer router in between. Basically everyone would be on a massive ISP LAN (which would have to be IPv6 for sure).

If that's what he means, there's about a 0% chance that would/could actually happen for a multitude of reasons.

 

[imagoon]

So one day all Router could take Fibre for Wan instead of the current Fibre Modem + Router Setup.

Are there any upcoming standard for that? Or are there any technical hurdles to get pass?

This is how business fiber is. Standard LC or SC hand off. For homes they want to sell you junk like phone and TV, that is all the "fiber modem" does.

 

[imagoon]

It seems like he's talking about a network where an ISP drops you a fiber line that is directly connected to to a fiber switch at the ISP - with no consumer router in between. Basically everyone would be on a massive ISP LAN (which would have to be IPv6 for sure).

If that's what he means, there's about a 0% chance that would/could actually happen for a multitude of reasons.

This is done daily around the world already. "Fiber modems" or "Fiber Routers" are just there for the carrier to sell you more crap. There is no technical reason why I couldn't just plug a random computer in to the fiber line at any of my offices.

 

[Mushkins]

This is done daily around the world already. "Fiber modems" or "Fiber Routers" are just there for the carrier to sell you more crap. There is no technical reason why I couldn't just plug a random computer in to the fiber line at any of my offices.

To be fair, that's how all internet services work. The router is there to create a private LAN with a shared internet connection instead of having a single device directly connected to the WAN. The modem is there to convert whatever signal format they're using into good ol' fashioned ethernet. If you had a NIC that supported it, you could plug right into the coax for your cable or your DSL line too.

 

[brshoemak]

I guess I misunderstood the question and thought he meant everyone in the same huge "network" without basic routing being performed.

Yes, fiber handoffs are constantly used and I have worked with a number of them myself. The ISP handles the routing upstream and usually provides some godawful locked down CPE piece of crap switch if they do a copper ethernet handoff.

 

[azazel1024]

This is done daily around the world already. "Fiber modems" or "Fiber Routers" are just there for the carrier to sell you more crap. There is no technical reason why I couldn't just plug a random computer in to the fiber line at any of my offices.

Also standards for ONT boxes.

As for performance in the home, 2.5 and 5GbE may come this year. IEEE is working on releasing the standard. There are current products that do them, but since it isn't a standard yet, just OEM specific gear, it hasn't been widely deployed yet.

Beyond that there is 10GbE which is a standard and can be run on Cat5e if you wanted (over short distances, but long enough to be totally viable for a house. 45 meters).

So, no, wireless isn't just going to replace everything. It is a shared medium, it attenuated rapidly with distance. Heck, 1GbE is going to be faster than most 802.11ax setups over distances greater than probably one room (unless talking about bridges). 11ax is supposed to add a fair amount of performance, but it isn't likely to add much more than about a doubling of wireless speeds. Maybe somewhat more under ideal scenarios.

My laptop with a 2:2 adapter to my router with 11ac if I am fairly close can hit about 60MB/sec with a tail wind. Oh, sure 11ax in ideal setups might hit 120-150MB/sec (160MHz channels for 11ac and 11ax aren't super likely. The components are much more expensive than 80MHz radios and amps). Buttttttt, if you put a wall in the way. Maybe a little more distance than 10ft or something, you'll probably see more like 50-70MB/sec on that 11ax connection.

Total speculation of course.

What isn't speculation is with that wireless setup, I can get 60MB/sec to one single client with 11ac. If I had MU:MIMO on a 4:4 router I could get about 60MB/sec to one client and 30MB/sec to a second client and that would be it. Throw in 20 clients and I am still just sharing around that ~90-100MB/sec of wireless speed.

Gigabit Ethernet on the other hand has ~120MB/sec to each and every single client in both directions at the same time if the network is designed properly.

Yes, we need faster Ethernet that is cheap, for a lot of reasons. However, wireless is not going to push wired networking out anytime soon. By anytime soon, I mean it'll likely never be a higher performing replacement for wired networking.

 

[drebo]

To be fair, that's how all internet services work. The router is there to create a private LAN with a shared internet connection instead of having a single device directly connected to the WAN.

No it's not. The router is there to provide a demarcation point between customer and provider. Whether the service is private WAN, direct Internet, or whatever is completely irrelevant. The router gives the provider a point of reference at the far end of whatever circuit they're providing you. They use it for QoS, shaping, classification, testing, and of course routing (in the sense of Internet routing, not home router "routing") between your network and theirs.

The business world and residential worlds are substantially different, and ISPs don't care about their residential customers in terms of SLAs. They do for business customers, and having a router at the customer site typically makes that a lot easier.

 

[Mushkins]

No it's not. The router is there to provide a demarcation point between customer and provider. Whether the service is private WAN, direct Internet, or whatever is completely irrelevant. The router gives the provider a point of reference at the far end of whatever circuit they're providing you. They use it for QoS, shaping, classification, testing, and of course routing (in the sense of Internet routing, not home router "routing") between your network and theirs.

The business world and residential worlds are substantially different, and ISPs don't care about their residential customers in terms of SLAs. They do for business customers, and having a router at the customer site typically makes that a lot easier.

What? The Fiber ONT from Verizon i'm sitting about 30 feet from absolutely is not a router, it's technically a modem. And like Imgoon said, I can plug a laptop directly into the ethernet jack on it and configure it with one of my static IPs and away I go. In fact, that's precisely what me and the Verizon tech did to make sure it worked when they installed it before we moved into this office.

It has nothing to do with SLAs or anything at all. Whether I have a single device connected to that wall or an enterprise-grade router, it's the exact same concept from a network engineering perspective, and Verizon certainly does *not* touch our routers when there's an ISP issue. It's precisely the same thing I have at home, my ISP does not own my router *or* my modem, they provide a live line from the local node for my condo complex and the rest is up to me. An ISP does not need access to my internal network or my gateway device *at all* to perform QoS on their network.

 

[freeskier93]

No it's not. The router is there to provide a demarcation point between customer and provider. Whether the service is private WAN, direct Internet, or whatever is completely irrelevant. The router gives the provider a point of reference at the far end of whatever circuit they're providing you. They use it for QoS, shaping, classification, testing, and of course routing (in the sense of Internet routing, not home router "routing") between your network and theirs.

The business world and residential worlds are substantially different, and ISPs don't care about their residential customers in terms of SLAs. They do for business customers, and having a router at the customer site typically makes that a lot easier.

This is not true at all, or you are confusing a router and a modem/ONT. We have a gigabit fiber connection at our house, the fiber comes out of the ground, into the house, and is hardwired into an ONT box in our basement. The ONT just converts the fiber to copper, it also has 4 RJ45 ports to provide up to 4 WAN connections (I'm not sure on the specifics here and if it's 4 WANs that share 1Gbps or 4 WANs each capable of 1Gbps with the potential to aggregate).

I can take my laptop and hook it up directly to the ONT box and surf the internet. Our router has absolutely nothing to do with our provider, it's our own personal device.

 

[drebo]

This is not true at all, or you are confusing a router and a modem/ONT. We have a gigabit fiber connection at our house, the fiber comes out of the ground, into the house, and is hardwired into an ONT box in our basement. The ONT just converts the fiber to copper, it also has 4 RJ45 ports to provide up to 4 WAN connections (I'm not sure on the specifics here and if it's 4 WANs that share 1Gbps or 4 WANs each capable of 1Gbps with the potential to aggregate).

I can take my laptop and hook it up directly to the ONT box and surf the internet. Our router has absolutely nothing to do with our provider, it's our own personal device.

Congratulations, your ONT is a router.

 

[drebo]

What? The Fiber ONT from Verizon i'm sitting about 30 feet from absolutely is not a router, it's technically a modem. And like Imgoon said, I can plug a laptop directly into the ethernet jack on it and configure it with one of my static IPs and away I go. In fact, that's precisely what me and the Verizon tech did to make sure it worked when they installed it before we moved into this office.

It has nothing to do with SLAs or anything at all. Whether I have a single device connected to that wall or an enterprise-grade router, it's the exact same concept from a network engineering perspective, and Verizon certainly does *not* touch our routers when there's an ISP issue. It's precisely the same thing I have at home, my ISP does not own my router *or* my modem, they provide a live line from the local node for my condo complex and the rest is up to me. An ISP does not need access to my internal network or my gateway device *at all* to perform QoS on their network.

Can you read?

Apparently not. Let me quote it for you.

The business world and residential worlds are substantially different, and ISPs don't care about their residential customers in terms of SLAs. They do for business customers, and having a router at the customer site typically makes that a lot easier.

Now go get some experience before you make yourself look stupid again.

Enterprise != home. Home is an irrelevant afterthought. In enterprise, 95% of all ISPs will place a router at your site. In enterprise, you don't deploy things like GPON (Verizon FIOS). Enterprise fiber connections are all active fiber, and active fiber is going to have a router on-site.

Hell, even Comcast business connections all have a router on site. Some types of connections don't require it. T1s have active NIUs (which are actually a form of hdsl anyway) to which they can test. Other forms of connection report things like SNR as part of their handshake (vdsl, etc) and thus don't require a router on-site for the kinds of metrics that matter when proving SLAs.

 

[ksec]

Ok... First I apologize, I think it was a messy question I posted, which I should have been much more clear.

For most resident ISP in the world, ( As fast as I know ), You can
1. Get Telephone Line with G.Fast / VDSL / ADSL etc and have a Modem to decode those signals.
2. You can have a FTTB / FTTC / to the building or the home, and have RJ45 Cat 5/6 Ethernet cabling for the last part to your home.
3. Or, You can get Fibre directly to your home. You have a Modem / ONT, and then the ONT will have an Ethernet Cable to your Router.

For 1, There are already DSL Modem Router available.
2. Since it is just RJ45 Ethernet you just directly attach it to your Router

Now for 3, is there / will there be a Universal ONT? Much you you can buy ADSL Modem and expect them to work with most ADSL providers.
Will there be a consumer ONT + Router 2 in 1 Design? Do the current consumer ONT Fibre Port / Plug all uses the same design ( SFP+ ?), Are they all compatible?


The reason I ask is because most ISP seems to flavor Fibre direct to Home. Rather then using Ethernet Cable.

But for Consumers, using Ethernet Cable means one less devices ( ONT / Modem ) and it can directly attach to all currently available Router. CAT 6a, / CAT 7 will allow 10Gbps over 100m. So why not Ethernet?

 

[brshoemak]

The reason I ask is because most ISP seems to flavor Fibre direct to Home. Rather then using Ethernet Cable.

But for Consumers, using Ethernet Cable means one less devices ( ONT / Modem ) and it can directly attach to all currently available Router. CAT 6a, / CAT 7 will allow 10Gbps over 100m. So why not Ethernet?

I want to clarify the term 'Ethernet' a little bit. Ethernet is a standard, not specifically a physical medium, as it can be fiber or copper. I'll assume by 'Ethernet cable' you're talking about a length of twisted-pair cabling terminated to RJ45 connectors on each side - basically what you'd be shown if you asked for an 'ethernet cable' at Walmart. Please correct me if I am assuming incorrectly.

If you're asking why they don't just run copper from their cable plant all the way to your home and terminate it into an ethernet jack, well one major limiting factor is distance. There are A LOT more factors to it than just that one thing, but it's an immediate non-starter.

The limit between most existing infrastructure copper cable runs is 100m. You would need a switch (or some sort of repeater) every 300 ft. As far as CAT6A/7, you're talking entire infrastructure overhaul and running and terminating those cables to spec is not a simple or cheap process.

Fiber is basically better in every way (which I can list if you'd like) and the closer they can get fiber to the home, the less upfront and continuing costs they will incurr. Yes, the physical fiber is more expensive, but you can fit 192 pairs of fiber into one relatively small cable and bury it in one go - the maintenance costs are minimal to non-existent. Trying that with 96 UTP cables is not much fun.

 

[imagoon]

To clarify here, I was specifically trying to mention that there is no requirement that fiber from the provider "need" any sort of device to be used. In residential the ONTs are typically routers, phone hand offs, cable TV and other junk that they can use to sell services to you. The network may or may not be Ethernet or a mix. The ONT will be configured to be a node on the network for P2MP or Multicast for things like TV and otherwise P2P for data.

Some of these services could be plugged directly in to computer via an SFP and provide Internet. In the business world this is not all that atypical (in a sense) because some of the providers like Comcast Metro and ATT PNT can provide you an LC hand off that you then plug in to your own routers / L3 switch. This typically comes from something like a Ciena switch.

The stuff Drebo is talking about is also extremely common. Comcast / ATT / etc typically won't provide the better SLA's to devices they can't control so they install a router and then give you a hand off. It is all dependent on your needs and preferred utilization.

Also fiber can be Ethernet, ksec may be missing part of the fundamentals. Ethernet is not "a cable" it is a protocol that run on "cables." What Walmart calls an "Ethernet cable" is a bad name for a 4 twisted pair cable. Ethernet works on fiber just fine.

 

[azazel1024]

Congratulations, your ONT is a router.

Nope, it is not routing connections.

Look up the definition of a router. An ONT (Optical Network Terminal) is an optical (GPON) to copper (Ethernet) bridge. Now look up the definition of a bridge and see that it applies.

A router is not a bridge is not a switch.

Connect directly to the ONT and you are getting a public IP address. Hook up your router to it and you have a private IP range behind the router and the router has a public IP address on the WAN port.

You can connect to the wider internet with no router at all at your "demarcation" point with the ISP. Crap is still being routed, because otherwise the internet doesn't work, it is just that there is no router at what you call the demarcation point then.

A cable modem is not a router. You can hook a computer directly to a cable modem if you want to and then the next router along the line is well in to the ISP's network. Or you can hook a router up to the cable modem, just like you can an ONT.

 

[azazel1024]

To clarify here, I was specifically trying to mention that there is no requirement that fiber from the provider "need" any sort of device to be used. In residential the ONTs are typically routers, phone hand offs, cable TV and other junk that they can use to sell services to you. The network may or may not be Ethernet or a mix. The ONT will be configured to be a node on the network for P2MP or Multicast for things like TV and otherwise P2P for data.

Some of these services could be plugged directly in to computer via an SFP and provide Internet. In the business world this is not all that atypical (in a sense) because some of the providers like Comcast Metro and ATT PNT can provide you an LC hand off that you then plug in to your own routers / L3 switch. This typically comes from something like a Ciena switch.

The stuff Drebo is talking about is also extremely common. Comcast / ATT / etc typically won't provide the better SLA's to devices they can't control so they install a router and then give you a hand off. It is all dependent on your needs and preferred utilization.

Also fiber can be Ethernet, ksec may be missing part of the fundamentals. Ethernet is not "a cable" it is a protocol that run on "cables." What Walmart calls an "Ethernet cable" is a bad name for a 4 twisted pair cable. Ethernet works on fiber just fine.

I would like to point out though, that even the ONTs that distribute phone, TV and internet to within your house are not actually routing packets. They are bridging. Very distinct things.

 

[imagoon]

I would like to point out though, that even the ONTs that distribute phone, TV and internet to within your house are not actually routing packets. They are bridging. Very distinct things.

Depends on the implementation. If what you said was true, there would not be the hundreds of thousands of complaints about the Verizon ONT not being able to use bridge mode if the user has phone or TV. The ONT does routing and channel work to make those services work.

 

[imagoon]

Nope, it is not routing connections.

Look up the definition of a router. An ONT (Optical Network Terminal) is an optical (GPON) to copper (Ethernet) bridge. Now look up the definition of a bridge and see that it applies.

A router is not a bridge is not a switch.

Connect directly to the ONT and you are getting a public IP address. Hook up your router to it and you have a private IP range behind the router and the router has a public IP address on the WAN port.

You can connect to the wider internet with no router at all at your "demarcation" point with the ISP. Crap is still being routed, because otherwise the internet doesn't work, it is just that there is no router at what you call the demarcation point then.

A cable modem is not a router. You can hook a computer directly to a cable modem if you want to and then the next router along the line is well in to the ISP's network. Or you can hook a router up to the cable modem, just like you can an ONT.

This is not true everywhere. Verizon is a great example for ONT, Comcast, Time Warner are examples for cable that don't implement this way by default. When you plug in to the ONT you will get a 192.168.0.1/24 address. If you have any services besides internet, "bridge mode" is not available. In Chicago Comcast won't allow you to bridge on the new crappy Cisco / "XfinityWIFI" modem/routers they send. Unless you buy static IPs.

 

[kevnich2]

This is not true everywhere. Verizon is a great example for ONT, Comcast, Time Warner are examples for cable that don't implement this way by default. When you plug in to the ONT you will get a 192.168.0.1/24 address. If you have any services besides internet, "bridge mode" is not available. In Chicago Comcast won't allow you to bridge on the new crappy Cisco / "XfinityWIFI" modem/routers they send. Unless you buy static IPs.

I think alot of people are confusing the terms of ONT and router for fiber connections and when someone's giving an example of routing, using that for an ONT or a router when they're referring to the opposite. I also disagree imagoon with verizon with their ONT's. If I plug my computer directly into my ONT, I get a publicly routable IP address, not a private IP. If I plug my router into this, it also gets a public IP address. The ONT is simply a bridge that takes the fiber signal and converts it to the other signals for video, data and phone, if needed.

If I call verizon for support and don't have THEIR router connected to my ONT, they won't help at all. But if you're having speed issues, their tech will tell you to plug your laptop into the ONT directly and test out your speeds as this takes the router out of the picture as a possible issue. The router is NOT required, but I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't use a router with a firewall to begin with? I'm sure now though, some ONT's may function as a router/NAT box itself but, in my opinion, this is also bad design as if something fails within the router portion, the entire ONT would need replaced vs a cheaper router/firewall.

 

[sdifox]

I think alot of people are confusing the terms of ONT and router for fiber connections and when someone's giving an example of routing, using that for an ONT or a router when they're referring to the opposite. I also disagree imagoon with verizon with their ONT's. If I plug my computer directly into my ONT, I get a publicly routable IP address, not a private IP. If I plug my router into this, it also gets a public IP address. The ONT is simply a bridge that takes the fiber signal and converts it to the other signals for video, data and phone, if needed.

If I call verizon for support and don't have THEIR router connected to my ONT, they won't help at all. But if you're having speed issues, their tech will tell you to plug your laptop into the ONT directly and test out your speeds as this takes the router out of the picture as a possible issue. The router is NOT required, but I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't use a router with a firewall to begin with? I'm sure now though, some ONT's may function as a router/NAT box itself but, in my opinion, this is also bad design as if something fails within the router portion, the entire ONT would need replaced vs a cheaper router/firewall.

I run pfsense so I don't need nor want their router. I have my own 48 port poe gigabit switch thank you very much.

 

[imagoon]

I think alot of people are confusing the terms of ONT and router for fiber connections and when someone's giving an example of routing, using that for an ONT or a router when they're referring to the opposite. I also disagree imagoon with verizon with their ONT's. If I plug my computer directly into my ONT, I get a publicly routable IP address, not a private IP. If I plug my router into this, it also gets a public IP address. The ONT is simply a bridge that takes the fiber signal and converts it to the other signals for video, data and phone, if needed.

If I call verizon for support and don't have THEIR router connected to my ONT, they won't help at all. But if you're having speed issues, their tech will tell you to plug your laptop into the ONT directly and test out your speeds as this takes the router out of the picture as a possible issue. The router is NOT required, but I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't use a router with a firewall to begin with? I'm sure now though, some ONT's may function as a router/NAT box itself but, in my opinion, this is also bad design as if something fails within the router portion, the entire ONT would need replaced vs a cheaper router/firewall.

Verizon installs combination ONT/Routers in some areas. Or another "favorite," they disable the Ethernet port entirely.

 

[sdifox]

Verizon installs combination ONT/Routers in some areas. Or another "favorite," they disable the Ethernet port entirely.

D:

 

[Red Squirrel]

I would love if they did this. Get rid of the cheap ISP router and per ISP proprietary configs and make a standard. Best bet is make it an ethernet connection that has 3 vlans. 1 vlan for internet, one for IPTV and one for voice. It already sorta works that way, except they add extra complexities so you can't just plug it in a switch directly and distribute the vlans. Well I got my internet to work that way but not TV. Phone is part of the ONT so is out of the picture once you get to ethernet.

My fibre ISP uses an Actiontec router that has no way to act as a pass through for internet, that means a double NAT. Thankfully I did find that you can use a specific Asus router with a custom firmware to replace the Actiontec. So I have it set as passthrough and then it uplinks to my firewall which does NAT and local vlan routing etc. One of these days I should still try to see if I can bypass even the Asus, I'm sure there's a way to get it going. But long story short yeah I do wish they'd come up with a standard where you don't need to use an ISP provided router. Sadly I don't see that happening.