Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Wed Jan 30 03:23:58 UTC 2013


In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:11:56PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled services of various
> forms.

Could you expand on why you think this is necessary?  I know you've
given this some thought, and I'd like to understand.

The way I see it, for $100 in equipment (2x$50 optics) anyone can
light 1Gbps over the fiber.  The only way the muni has significantly
cheaper port costs than a provider with a switch and a port per
customer is to do something like GPON which allows one port to
service a number of customers, but obviously imposes a huge set of
limitions (bandwiths, protocols you can run over it, etc).

I also think the "ONT" adds unnecesary cost.  They are used today
primarily for a handoff test point, and to protect shared networks
(like GPON) from a bad actor.  With a dedicated fiber pair per
customer I think they are unnecessary.  I can see a future where
the home gateway at the local big box has an SFP port (or even fixed
1000baseLX optics) and plugs directly into the fiber pair.

No ONT cost, no ONT limitations, no need to power it (UPS battery
replacement, etc).  It's a value subtract, not a value add.

-- 
       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/bd9ac2a2/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list