nanog mailing list archives
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:11:56 -0800
I would put it differently. I believe that the entity (muni, county, state, special district, or whatever) should be required to make dark fiber patches available. I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled services of various forms. I believe that they should be prohibited from engaging in L3+ services. I believe they should be required to offer more than a MMR type facility in order to enable cost-effective utilization by smaller providers. There are a number of ways this can be accomplished without necessarily requiring the muni to get into anything complicated. Owen On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:51 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54:26PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets smaller players play. Does your position (likely more deeply thought out than mine) permit Layer 2 with Muni ONT and Ethernet handoff, as long as clients are *also* permitted to get a Layer 1 patch to a provider in the fashion you suggest?No, and there's good reason why, I'm about to write a response to Owen that will also expand on why. There are a number of issues with the muni running the ONT: - Muni now has to have a different level of techs and truck rolls. - The Muni MMR now is much more complex, requiring power (including backup generators, etc) and likely 24x7 staff as a result. - The muni-ont will limit users to the technologies the ONT supports. If you want to spin up 96x10GE WDM your 1G ONT won't allow it. - The optic cost is not significantly different if the muni buys them and provides lit L2, or if the service/provider user provides them. The muni should sell L1 patches to anyone in the MMR. Note, this _includes_ two on-net buildings. So if your work and home are connected to the same muni-MMR you could order a patch from one to the other. It may now be max ~20km, so you'll need longer reach optics, but if you want to stand up 96x10GE WDM you're good to go. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Current thread:
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth, (continued)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Rob McEwen (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Scott Brim (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Owen DeLong (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Leo Bicknell (Jan 29)
- Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Jay Ashworth (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Zachary Giles (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Miles Fidelman (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Mikael Abrahamsson (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Leo Bicknell (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Owen DeLong (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Leo Bicknell (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Owen DeLong (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Leo Bicknell (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Owen DeLong (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Jay Ashworth (Jan 30)
- Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Jay Ashworth (Jan 29)
- ONT diagnostics (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) John Osmon (Jan 30)
- Re: ONT diagnostics (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) Jake Khuon (Jan 30)
- Re: ONT diagnostics (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) joel jaeggli (Jan 30)
- Re: ONT diagnostics (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) Jason Baugher (Jan 30)
- Re: ONT diagnostics (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?) Randy Bush (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Rob McEwen (Jan 29)