[160037] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Jan 30 16:47:41 2013
In-Reply-To: <D9FA896C-A76F-4464-B74B-486F85A43BCB@delong.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:47:08 -0500
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:24 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>> As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
>> layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
>> for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
>> taxpayers.
>
> Perhaps, but well worth the effort. There are a wide variety of reasons
> to want more than one L3 provider to be readily available and avoid
> limiting consumers to a single choice of ISP policies, capabilities, etc.
If the municipal provider offers open, settlement-free peering at the
head end then the customer *does* have a choice of L3 provider. Tunnel
service over IP has only minor differences from an L2 service in such
a scenario. Only one difference truthfully: MTU.
> Also, an L1/L2 fiber plant may be usable for other services beyond just
> packets.
True enough but rapidly dropping in importance. The 20th century held
POTS service with a rare need for a dry copper pair. The 21st holds IP
packets with a rare need for dark fiber.
Besides, I don't propose that a municipality implement fiber but
refuse to unbundle it at any reasonable price. That would be Really
Bad.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
