Muni Fiber and Politics

Mikael Abrahamsson swmike at
Tue Jul 22 19:18:26 UTC 2014

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:

> I believe you've misunderstood Scott's point.
> The goal of layer-restriction is to encourage competition.

I am well aware of this.

> The underlying goal is "reducing the barrier to entry of a new ISP".

Yes, but you also want to encourage entry of new technology.

> The less equipment such a new ISP has to provision, the lower that
> barrier is.  If all you have to provision is a couple GE/10GE ports
> on your core switch, that's an order of magnitude easier than any
> type of optical termination equipment, for you as a potential ISP
> customer.
> To make this work, the fiber operator *has to make it easy for ISPs
> to become their clients* as well...

I have no problem with the fiber owner operating L2 equipment as long as 
they also offer L1 access at lower prices than the L2 access.

Also, it's complicated to properly handle L2 access termination as well, 
so by your reasoning the provider wants to do L3 access where they handle 
everything and the ISP only routes a /20 IPv4 block and /43 IPv6 to the 
muni network, and all their customers needs in form of DHCPv4/v6(-PD) etc 
is handled by the fiber operator.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at

More information about the NANOG mailing list