[160426] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Wieling)
Tue Feb 5 21:40:32 2013
From: Eric Wieling <EWieling@nyigc.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 21:40:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5111A6C6.5060803@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
The ILECs basically got large portions of the 1996 telecom reform rules gut=
ted via lawsuits. DSL unbundling was part of this. See http://quello.msu=
.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/wp-05-02.pdf The ILECs already need a DSLAM =
in each CO and already use ATM PVCs to provide L2 connectivity from the DSL=
AM to their IP network, I don't think it is that much more expensive to all=
ow other ISPs an ATM PVC into their network. ATM may not be the best te=
chnology to do this, but the basic concept is not bad. Ethernet VLANs woul=
d be another option, as would Frame Relay, as would simply DAXing multiple =
64k channels from the customer endpoint to the ISP if you want more L1 styl=
e connectivity. =20
What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers, I don't care what the l=
ocal loop is. It could be fiber, twisted pair, coax, or even licensed wir=
eless and hand it off to me over a nice fat fiber link with a PVC or VLAN o=
r whatever to the customer endpoint. What I don't want is to have to inst=
all equipment at each and every CO I want to provide service out of. This =
would be astoundingly expensive for us.
-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:42 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
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=20
> 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 leas=
t in Japan, which made DSL in Japan quite inexpensive.
> We currently use XO, Covad, etc to connect to the customer We get a=20
> fiber connection to them and the provide use L2 connectivity to the=20
> 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
