Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Mikael Abrahamsson swmike at swm.pp.se
Thu Jan 31 05:59:21 UTC 2013


On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> It's a matter of economies of scale. If everyone has to light their own 
> fiber, you haven't saved that much.  If the fiber is lit, at L2, and 
> charged back on a cost-recovery basis, then there are tremendous 
> economies of scale. The examples that come to mind are campus and 
> corporate networks.

The problem is rolling out new services.

We have a big share of home connections here in Sweden based on L2/L3 
muni. "None" of them have IPv6 and when you ask them, there is very little 
response.

Of course there are a lot of different models here, everything from the 
guys who do L3 (you route a /21 or something to them) to L2 (they do all 
antispoofing stuff, you get plain L3 interface) to QinQ style handoff 
(increases ISP cost because QinQ capable router is more expensive).

About device requirements mentioned earlier in the thread, just want to 
provide this link:

<http://secureenduserconnection.se/2012/03/23/new-sec-access-certification/>

These guys "certify" vendors to have all the proper 
antispoofing/anti-MiTM/etc functonality to deliver a proper ETTH service.

The requirements document is publically available and a worthwhile read if 
anyone is new to the ETTH business with active ethernet.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se



More information about the NANOG mailing list