Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Wed Jan 30 02:51:40 UTC 2013


In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54:26PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Hmmm.  I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets smaller
> players play.  Does your position (likely more deeply thought out than 
> mine) permit Layer 2 with Muni ONT and Ethernet handoff, as long as clients
> are *also* permitted to get a Layer 1 patch to a provider in the fashion you
> suggest?

No, and there's good reason why, I'm about to write a response to Owen
that will also expand on why.

There are a number of issues with the muni running the ONT:

 - Muni now has to have a different level of techs and truck rolls.
 - The Muni MMR now is much more complex, requiring power (including
   backup generators, etc) and likely 24x7 staff as a result.
 - The muni-ont will limit users to the technologies the ONT supports.
   If you want to spin up 96x10GE WDM your 1G ONT won't allow it.
 - The optic cost is not significantly different if the muni buys them
   and provides lit L2, or if the service/provider user provides them.

The muni should sell L1 patches to anyone in the MMR.  Note, this
_includes_ two on-net buildings.  So if your work and home are connected
to the same muni-MMR you could order a patch from one to the other.
It may now be max ~20km, so you'll need longer reach optics, but if you
want to stand up 96x10GE WDM you're good to go.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20130129/c558cb2a/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list