[173803] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Osmon)
Wed Aug 6 13:03:49 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 11:08:10 -0600
From: John Osmon <josmon@rigozsaurus.com>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <E266A582-EBE2-4E5D-8E9E-812E1F17EDC6@ufp.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 10:23:55AM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[...]
> By drawing an (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) boundary between L1/L2 and L3-L7,
> I think a situation can be created where there is maximum flexibility on both
> sides of that boundary, and the least chance of "stupidity" from players on
> either side.
I know of areas where multiple ISPs would welcome lit layer 2 services,
because of unfamiliarity with provisioning such. So a mixed L1/L2
service where providers can "grow into" things could be very
attractive in creating competition.
