Muni Fiber and Politics

Mikael Abrahamsson swmike at swm.pp.se
Tue Jul 22 19:08:12 UTC 2014


On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:

> BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since 
> neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network 
> anyway.  I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be 
> done between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear, 
> including the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3 
> information like DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses.

I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use 
very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per 
vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question?

> Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible 
> that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already 
> and where cities have the resources to build one the market usually 
> doesn't need them to.

If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this 
warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling.

This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for 
municipalities?

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


More information about the NANOG mailing list