Muni Fiber and Politics

Scott Helms khelms at zcorum.com
Tue Jul 22 21:07:24 UTC 2014


My experience is completely opposite though admittedly this may be because
of the specific projects and cities I've worked with.  In all the cases
I've been involved with giving the ISPs layer 2 responsibility led to a
never ending stream of finger pointing.  I'd also say that just because
your TDR doesn't see a reflection does not mean you have a clean path.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Ray Soucy wrote:
>
>  The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service.  If you
>> have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a
>> service?  More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets
>> neglected who is responsible for it?  I don't think the municipality or
>> public utility is a good fit.
>>
>
> I can also tell from experience in this area, that having the muni active
> network in between you as a customer, and the ISP, makes for no fun fault
> finding. The ISP is blind to what's going on, and you have a commercial
> relationship with the ISP. Their subcontractor, ie the L2 network, needs to
> assist in qualified fault management, and they usually don't have the skill
> and resources needed.
>
> Running an L1 network is easier because most of the time the only thing
> you need to understand is if the light is arriving and how much of it, and
> you can easily check this with a fiber light meter. Running L2 network,
> perhaps even with some L3 functions to make multicast etc more efficient,
> is not as easy to do as it might sound considering all factors.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list