Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Tue Feb 5 16:32:25 UTC 2013

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jérôme Nicolle" <jerome at ceriz.fr>

> Le 29/01/2013 18:54, Jay Ashworth a écrit :
> > Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets
> > smaller players play.
> 
> Please let me present the french regulatory rules about that. It has
> been an ongoing debate for a few years and is now almost stable.

[ ... ]

> Infrastructure operators can also provide a L2 service but are still
> required to offer L1 service to any willing ISP. In such case,
> collocation space in street cabinets (or the ability to install their
> own side by side with passive cabinets) is required.
> 
> This model has been choosed because it lets both network types be
> deployed : either point to multipoint (GePON) or point to point is
> possible on any of these fiber networks, thanks to the local-loop
> (between residences and MMRs) beeing point to point only.
> 
> Smaller ISPs usually go for L2 services, provided by the infrastructure
> operator or another ISP already present on site. But some tends to stick
> to L1 service and deply their own eqipments for many reasons.

Hmmm.  Sounds familiar, Jerome.  :-)

How is it working out in practice, since it's within about 10% of what
I proposed to do?  Are there any public numbers we can look at?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647 1274