[159956] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Tue Jan 29 15:18:50 2013
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:17:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <51082BF8.7020309@vaxination.ca>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
> Is last mile infrastructure really considered "internet" ? If a GPON
> system operates as layer 2, it provides no internet connectivity, no IP
> routing and would/should not implement any IP use policies such as
> throttling etc. About the only traffic management it would do is
> provide separate garanteed bandwidth channel for VoIP. (or via QoS)
>
>
> If the last mile is sold only as wholesale (as is the case for
> Australian NBN), then it is up to each private service provider who
> buys access to reach homes to implement IP policies and connect to the
> internet, provide services such as DHCP etc.
Though I wouldn't pick GPON over home-run, yes, that's roughly the point I
and another poster were trying to make in earlier replies:
If you're at layer 1, and arguably at layer 2, then move-add-change on
physical patches / VLAN assignments is all you would need to log, since you
don't actually touch "real traffic".
One of the major arguments in favor of doing it that way.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
