[160504] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Wieling)
Wed Feb 6 18:52:06 2013
From: Eric Wieling <EWieling@nyigc.com>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Scott Helms
<khelms@zcorum.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:51:48 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5112CFA9.3070809@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Putting routers and DLAMs each CO is simply not affordable for any but the =
largest providers like XO. I expect Japan with its compact population ce=
nters may be different, but in the USA there are not enough people connecte=
d to any but the largest COs to make it affordable. I'm not stuck on usi=
ng ATM (I used it only as an example), any L2 technology will work. One o=
f our providers uses an Ethernet VLAN per customer endpoint and hands off b=
unches of VLANs to us over fiber. =20
-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]=20
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:48 PM
To: Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Scott Helms wrote:
> Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real=20
> 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=20
>> subject.
> Why?
Because, for competing ISPs with considerable share, L1 unbundling costs le=
ss.
They can just have routers, switches and DSL modems in collocation spaces o=
f COs, without L2TP or PPPoE, which means they can eliminate cost for L2TP =
or PPPoE.
Masataka Ohta
