[160400] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Tue Feb 5 11:33:31 2013
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:32:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <5110F25A.1090500@ceriz.fr>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Nicolle" <jerome@ceriz.fr>
> Le 29/01/2013 18:54, Jay Ashworth a =C3=A9crit :
> > Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets
> > smaller players play.
>=20
> Please let me present the french regulatory rules about that. It has
> been an ongoing debate for a few years and is now almost stable.
[ ... ]
> Infrastructure operators can also provide a L2 service but are still
> required to offer L1 service to any willing ISP. In such case,
> collocation space in street cabinets (or the ability to install their
> own side by side with passive cabinets) is required.
>=20
> This model has been choosed because it lets both network types be
> deployed : either point to multipoint (GePON) or point to point is
> possible on any of these fiber networks, thanks to the local-loop
> (between residences and MMRs) beeing point to point only.
>=20
> Smaller ISPs usually go for L2 services, provided by the infrastructure
> operator or another ISP already present on site. But some tends to stick
> to L1 service and deply their own eqipments for many reasons.
Hmmm. Sounds familiar, Jerome. :-)
How is it working out in practice, since it's within about 10% of what
I proposed to do? Are there any public numbers we can look at?
Cheers,
-- jra
--=20
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.=
com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2=
100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover =
DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1=
274
