[173356] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Tue Jul 22 15:08:21 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:08:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:
> BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since
> neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network
> anyway. I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be
> done between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear,
> including the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3
> information like DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses.
I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use
very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per
vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question?
> Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible
> that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already
> and where cities have the resources to build one the market usually
> doesn't need them to.
If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this
warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling.
This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for
municipalities?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
