[173760] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Aug 4 12:45:56 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXzNM1Dogm5V3OkYPYjvLLmv8YjKVm-hD-AQ8qzBBhwAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:35:18 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
> horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
> service you can come up with today does.
Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when t=
hat claim could have been made about copper. I would not make that claim abo=
ut copper today (or even 10 years ago).
>> I can also see how some longer-distance links, imagine a link from
>> home to office across 30-40 miles, might be cheaper to deliver as 100M
>> VLAN than raw dark fiber and having to buy long reach optics.
>=20
> Long-reach optics are relatively cheap, or at least they can be if you
> optimize for expense. The better example is when you want ISP #1,
> phone company #2, TV service #3, data warehouse service #4, etc. With
> a lit service, you only have to buy the last-mile component once.
In such a case, is there a reason you couldn't use the optics from ISP#1 as l=
it service to reach PhoneCo #2, TV-Co #3, and Warehouse #4 if that was desir=
able?
Surely at least one of the 4 could provide optics and a convenient layer 2 h=
andoff for the other services at least as easily and cost-effectively as L2 s=
ervice from the L1 fiber provider.
>> I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.=
>=20
> Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a l=
ine.
>=20
> Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus
> providing services and out-system communications.
I think the best line to draw is between passive facilities and active compo=
nents.
If it consumes electricity, regardless of power source, it shouldn't be part=
of the facilities network provider's purview with the possible exception of=
technology-agnostic amplifiers, which should be avoided whenever possible.
> With a multi-service provider network there are, IMO, major advantages
> to implementing it with private-IP IPv4 instead of a layer 2 solution.
> No complicated vlans, PPoE or gpon channels. Just normal IP routing
> and normal access control filters available in even the cheap
> equipment. Then run your various virtual wire technologies (e.g. VPNs)
> over the IP network. Everybody is a peer on the network, so the
> infrastructure provider doesn't need to know anything about
> customer-service provider relationships and doesn't need to implement
> any special configurations in their network to serve them.
In an already-sunk equipment cost environment, this might be a necessary tra=
deoff. In a greenfield deployment, there's no reason whatsoever not to use I=
Pv6 GUA in place of RFC-1918 with the added advantage that you are not limit=
ed to ~17 million managed entries per management domain.
Even ULA would be a better (albeit nearly as bad) choice than RFC-1918.
Hmmm... Can one run 802.1q over GRE? (Too lazy to look that one up at the mo=
ment).
Owen
