Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Wed Jan 30 21:47:08 UTC 2013

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:24 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
>> layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
>> for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
>> taxpayers.
> Perhaps, but well worth the effort. There are a wide variety of reasons
> to want more than one L3 provider to be readily available and avoid
> limiting consumers to a single choice of ISP policies, capabilities, etc.

If the municipal provider offers open, settlement-free peering at the
head end then the customer *does* have a choice of L3 provider. Tunnel
service over IP has only minor differences from an L2 service in such
a scenario. Only one difference truthfully: MTU.

> Also, an L1/L2 fiber plant may be usable for other services beyond just
> packets.

True enough but rapidly dropping in importance. The 20th century held
POTS service with a rare need for a dry copper pair. The 21st holds IP
packets with a rare need for dark fiber.

Besides, I don't propose that a municipality implement fiber but
refuse to unbundle it at any reasonable price. That would be Really

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the NANOG mailing list