[159976] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Miles Fidelman)
Tue Jan 29 19:10:56 2013
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:10:41 -0500
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
CC: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <11009764.4197.1359482066080.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
It's a matter of economies of scale. If everyone has to light their own
fiber, you haven't saved that much. If the fiber is lit, at L2, and
charged back on a cost-recovery basis, then there are tremendous
economies of scale. The examples that come to mind are campus and
corporate networks.
Miles Fidelman
Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org>
>> I am a big proponent of muni-owned dark fiber networks. I want to
>> be 100% clear about what I advocate here:
>>
>> - Muni-owned MMR space, fiber only, no active equipment allowed. A
>> big cross connect room, where the muni-fiber ends and providers are
>> all allowed to colocate their fiber term on non-discriminatory terms.
>> - 4-6 strands per home, home run back to the muni-owned MMR space.
>> No splitters, WDM, etc, home run glass. Terminating on an optical
>> handoff inside the home.
> 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?
>
> (I concur with your 3-pair delivery, which makes this more practical on an
> M-A-C basis, even if it might require some users to have multiple ONTs...)
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
