[160424] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Wieling)
Tue Feb 5 19:27:17 2013
From: Eric Wieling <EWieling@nyigc.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 19:27:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5111A10F.3060300@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In the past the ISP simply needed a nice big ATM pipe to the ILEC for DSL s=
ervice. The ILEC provided a PVC from the customer endpoint to the ISP. A=
s understand it this is no longer the case, but only because of non-technic=
al issues.
We currently use XO, Covad, etc to connect to the customer We get a fiber=
connection to them and the provide use L2 connectivity to the custom endpo=
int using an Ethernet VLAN, Frame Relay PVC, etc complete with QoS. I ass=
ume XO, etc use UNE access to the local loop. There is no reason a Muni c=
an't do something similar. =20
-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:17 PM
To: Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
> note that a phone company often had
> several central offices to cover their territory in the time before=20
> there were remotes (Digital Loop Carriers).
Each CO has its own MDF, where competing ISPs must have their routers.
No different from competing ISPs using DSL or PON.
