0

I have been looking at some Omnitron systems that convert between ethernet RJ45 and fiber optic. I would like to use these systems to communicate internet over a significant distance, using 3 fiber strands that are available.

These 3 fiber strands would need to carry internet communication serially, where there are several Omnitron systems in serial and at each Omnitron system, there would be Router with computers feeding off of the internet connection.

Now, 3 fiber strands is an odd number, that doesn't allow to form two separate channels for example. If I had 4 fiber strands, I could have half of the systems on 2 of the Tx and Rx fibers. I would then have the other half of the systems on the other Tx and Rx fibers.

The benefit of above is that there is redundancy for at least half of the systems. This is because in the serial interconnection, if one of the Omnitron components were to fail, it would break the line in the Serial interconnection. The only downside would be if systems need to communicate directly between each other that are on different channels, then the communication would need to go all the way back to the gateway, and then onto the other channel to reach that system, as opposed to just directly going along the fiber to reach the target system.

Now, with 3 fibers, my understanding is that I can pretty much only make either upstream or downstream traffic redundant, which is pretty useless since internet communication is very bidirectional in pretty much all cases. The reason I say this is because 2 fibers would be used for Tx and Rx to deliver internet as usual. The 1 remaining fiber can either be connected to the Rx or Tx of Channel 2. This 1 fiber could then be interweaved between half of the systems. So for example, half of the systems are on Channel 1 Tx and the other half of the systems are on Channel 2 Tx. All of the systems are on Channel 1 Rx. So if only Tx breaks on the Serial Channel 1, then the other half of the systems on Channel 2 can still have internet by using the Channel 2 Tx.

Also, in my above example, Tx could have double the bandwidth and better handle congestion since there are two channels on the Tx. So there's that benefit as well.

I just wanted to see if there is more that I could do with 3 strands or not. Is what I described accurate and the best approach? Is there a better approach? I found 3 strands to be strange, since it falls between being able to do 1 full channel and 2 full channels. I just wanted to make sure I am not missing anything.

Thanks

3
  • 1
    Did you look at any BX standard interfaces? One strand used for both directions. See this question and its answers.
    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 6, 2022 at 16:48
  • Excellent point, this is exactly why I posted. I'll definitely take a look into that.
    – Doug
    Jan 6, 2022 at 16:50
  • Remember that SE sites are question and answer archives, and you should search before asking a question.
    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 6, 2022 at 16:53

0

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.