Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Wed Feb 6 15:32:15 UTC 2013

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Eric Wieling <EWieling at nyigc.com> wrote:

> Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul
> their DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?
>

In the independent space this has been Ethernet for a very long time.  In
the RBOC space its taken longer, but my understanding is that they have
also switched most of their connections.  The only exceptions to this I am
aware of are those AT&T and Verizon territories that are still limited to
g.lite (1.5 mbps) ADSL.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
>
> Eric Wieling wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other ISPs an
> > ATM PVC into their network.
>
> Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.
>
> > ATM may not be the best technology to do this,
>
> It is not.
>
> > but the basic concept is not bad.
>
> It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See the subject.
>
> > What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers,
>
> You may. However, the customers care cost for you to do so, a lot.
>
> L1 unbundling allows the customers to choose an ISP with best (w.r.t.
> cost, performance, etc.) L2 and L3 technology, whereas
> L2 unbundling allows ILECs choose stupid L2 technologies such as ATM or
> PON, which is locally best for their short term revenue, which, in the long
> run, delays global deployment of broadband environment, because of high
> cost to the customers.
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta
>
>
>

-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------