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
Bad.

Regards,
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