[160452] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Wieling)
Wed Feb 6 10:24:27 2013
From: Eric Wieling <EWieling@nyigc.com>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:16:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <51120B49.80606@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul thei=
r DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?
-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]=20
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Eric Wieling wrote:
> I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other ISPs an=20
> ATM PVC into their network.
Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.
> ATM may not be the best technology to do this,
It is not.
> but the basic concept is not bad.
It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See the subject.
> What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers,
You may. However, the customers care cost for you to do so, a lot.
L1 unbundling allows the customers to choose an ISP with best (w.r.t. cost,=
performance, etc.) L2 and L3 technology, whereas
L2 unbundling allows ILECs choose stupid L2 technologies such as ATM or PON=
, which is locally best for their short term revenue, which, in the long ru=
n, delays global deployment of broadband environment, because of high cost =
to the customers.
Masataka Ohta
