[160425] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Tue Feb 5 19:42:16 2013
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:41:42 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <616B4ECE1290D441AD56124FEBB03D0810FE5424C2@mailserver2007.nyigc.globe>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Eric Wieling wrote:
> In the past the ISP simply needed a nice big ATM pipe to the
> ILEC for DSL service. The ILEC provided a PVC from the
> customer endpoint to the ISP. As understand it this is no
> longer the case, but only because of non-technical issues.
The non-technical issue is *COST*!!!!!
No one considered to use so expensive ATM as L2 for DSL unbundling,
at least in Japan, which made DSL in Japan quite inexpensive.
> 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 endpoint using an Ethernet VLAN,
> Frame Relay PVC, etc complete with QoS. I assume XO,
> etc use UNE access to the local loop. There is no reason
> a Muni can't do something similar.
Muni can. However, there is no reason Muni can't offer L1
unbundling.
Masataka Ohta
