[160138] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jan 31 16:39:41 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRy=r_DygSeeATHn_HDALXtTzsS60eaz39Jf1coi2U35dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:15:20 -0800
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That's why I'm not advocating for open access, I'm advocating for L1/L2 =
provider
separation and a requirement that the L1 access itself be open.
I have yet to get a firm answer, but as I understand PON, it doesn't =
actually matter
so much whether you put the splitter/combiner in an MMR or near the CPE.
Obviously, most of the "economy" of PON comes from putting the splitter =
near
the subscriber, but so does the loss of open access at L1.
OTOH, if you build out fiber from a city or neighborhood or whatever to =
an
independent MMR, I don't believe there's any reason you couldn't =
cross-connect
various users home-run fibers to splitter/combiners inside the MMR and =
then
run that to a PON system (if you really wanted to for some reason).
Owen
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:45 , Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> The short answer is that you don't today and it will be a long time =
(if ever) before its feasible. Europe is commonly held up as an example =
of an area where open access works and if you stick to DSL networks =
that's true. The problem is that the DSL networks (by and large) in =
Europe aren't expanding and are being overtaken by FTTx and to a lesser =
extent DOCSIS. The reasons why this is so can be debated, but it is =
definitely happening and given that trend there is very little incentive =
for the equipment manufacturers and protocol groups to build in open =
access as a core part of their design as it was in DSL, especially with =
PPPoX authentication. =20
>=20
> Now, once networks get to purely active Ethernet things get more =
simple technically, after all you easily do QinQ tagging, but there has =
been little movement even in regulation tolerant Europe to force =
operators to open up and its much less likely to happen here in the US. =
Whats more many of the FTTx builds aren't Ethernet today and doing open =
access on any flavor of PON is so painful operationally that it simply =
won't happen.
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 07:07 , Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
>=20
> > Late to the conversation, but I'll chime in that we established a
> > model in Maine that is working pretty well, at least for middle-mile
> > fiber.
> >
> > When we started building out MaineREN (our RON) we decided that =
having
> > the University own the fiber would tie it up in political red tape.
> > So much so that it would ultimately not be made available to the
> > private sector (because incumbents would accuse us of competing with
> > them using public funds). We knew this because we had already spent =
a
> > year in the legislature fighting off industry lobbyists.
> >
> > Obviously there are considerable investments in such infrastructure
> > that many private companies are unwilling or unable to make in rural
> > areas (ROI takes too long), so we really wanted to make sure that
> > future facilities would be built out in a way that would allow =
service
> > providers to expand into the state cheaply, encourage competition, =
and
> > ultimately provide better services at lower costs.
> >
> > The goal was to establish geographically diverse, high stand-count,
> > rings to reach the majority of the state, so we pitched it in a
> > public-private partnership to go after Recovery Act funding.
> >
>=20
> That's also a worthy goal, but it doesn't address the issues that
> are the subject of this conversation. Middle-mile solutions
> like this are not all that uncommon, even in such backwards
> places (when it comes to networking infrastructure) as silicon
> valley.
>=20
> Where we still have a serious lack of deployment and virtually no
> competition, even in most major metros, is the last mile.
>=20
> > As of a few months ago the build-out is complete, and the first
> > networks to make use of the fiber are starting to come online
> > (including MaineREN).
> >
> > The way we did it was to have the state government create a new =
public
> > utility designation of "Dark Fiber Provider". There are a few rules
> > in place to keep things fair: Mainly they're forbidden to provide =
lit
> > services and they're required to provide open access to anyone at
> > published rates.
> >
>=20
> This is definitely a good first step if you can get it through the =
legislative
> process without having the $TELCOS and $CABLECOS lobby against
> it to the point of death or dismemberment.
>=20
> > The result is "Maine Fiber Company":
> >
> > http://www.mainefiberco.com/
> >
> > It's still early on, but I'm anxious to see how things look in 10 =
years or so.
> >
>=20
> Sounds great... Now, the $50,000,000 question... How do we replicate
> that model at the consumer level?
>=20
> > A lot of people who like the idea of what we've done aren't sure if
> > it's a good model to apply for last mile fiber. Personally, I think
> > replicating this model to deliver dark fiber to the home (much like
> > electricity) is the only way we'll be able to shield providers from
> > having to make major investments to deliver the level of service we
> > really need. By keeping it as a dark-fiber only service, you create
> > an environment where there is competition instead of one provider
> > keeping speeds low and prices high.
>=20
> That's certainly the ideal, yes.
>=20
> > I initially thought having L2 separation would be good in that =
service
> > changes could be done remotely, etc. But after giving it some
> > thought, I think it places way too much potential for L2 to be the
> > bottleneck or source of problematic service and if it's provided by =
a
> > public utility or municipality it could take very long to fix (if it
> > get's fixed at all) due to politics and budget hawks. I really want
> > to have choice between providers even at the L2 level.
>=20
> There are cases where the lack of L2 services could pose a barrier
> to entry for competition. That's why I proposed the following =
requirements:
>=20
> 1. Must sell dark fiber to any purchaser.
> 2. Must sell dark fiber to all purchasers on equal terms.
> (There must be a published price list and there cannot be =
deviations
> from that price list. If the price list is modified, existing =
customers
> receive the new pricing at the beginning of their next billing =
cycle.)
> 3. May provide value-added L2 services
> 4. If L2 services are provided, they are also subject to rule 2.
> 5. May not sell L3 or higher level services.
> 6. May not hold ownership or build any form of alliance or =
affiliation with
> a provider of L3 or higher level services.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> =
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
> >> --
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ray Patrick Soucy
> > Network Engineer
> > University of Maine System
> >
> > T: 207-561-3526
> > F: 207-561-3531
> >
> > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
> > www.maineren.net
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Scott Helms=20
> Vice President of Technology=20
> ZCorum=20
> (678) 507-5000=20
> --------------------------------=20
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms=20
> --------------------------------=20
