[160493] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Wed Feb 6 16:49:02 2013
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:48:25 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRzUvW5Qy6V_c9w3AG1iHs_QWmX7BK01tp1eY2CV3oLbaw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Scott Helms wrote:
> Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real drawback
> to using ATM.
High cost is the real drawback.
>>> but the basic concept is not bad.
>>
>> It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See
>> the subject.
> Why?
Because, for competing ISPs with considerable share, L1
unbundling costs less.
They can just have routers, switches and DSL modems in
collocation spaces of COs, without L2TP or PPPoE, which
means they can eliminate cost for L2TP or PPPoE.
Masataka Ohta
