nanog mailing list archives
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:27:48 -0400
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a line. Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus providing services and out-system communications.I think the best line to draw is between passive facilities and active components.
Hi Owen, You've convinced me. However, I think it's still worth talking about where you draw the second line -- if the infrastructure provider implements a network with active components and some kind of digital data passing protocol, what should the scope of that capability be limited to?
With a multi-service provider network there are, IMO, major advantages to implementing it with private-IP IPv4 instead of a layer 2 solution. No complicated vlans, PPoE or gpon channels. Just normal IP routing and normal access control filters available in even the cheap equipment. Then run your various virtual wire technologies (e.g. VPNs) over the IP network. Everybody is a peer on the network, so the infrastructure provider doesn't need to know anything about customer-service provider relationships and doesn't need to implement any special configurations in their network to serve them.In an already-sunk equipment cost environment, this might be a necessary tradeoff. In a greenfield deployment, there's no reason whatsoever not to use IPv6 GUA in place of RFC-1918 with the added advantage that you are not limited to ~17 million managed entries per management domain.
Cost and availability of tools, equipment and personnel still strongly favors IPv4. Presumably that will eventually change, but it won't change for the equipment you can purchase today. The only point of providing lit service is to suppress the initial consumer-level cost, so let's not suggest choices that increase it. If the local infrastructure provider has a million customers in a single domain, it is too large to have implemented itself cost-effectively (they'll be using the super-expensive high-capacity low-production-run core equipment) and is straying into that undesirable territory where the infrastructure provider becomes a general service provider. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Current thread:
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics, (continued)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Leo Bicknell (Aug 01)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 02)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Scott Helms (Aug 02)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Leo Bicknell (Aug 02)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Corey Touchet (Aug 02)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Jima (Aug 05)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 02)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 02)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics William Herrin (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics William Herrin (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Miles Fidelman (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Jay Ashworth (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Leo Bicknell (Aug 06)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics John Osmon (Aug 06)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Joly MacFie (Aug 01)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 02)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Mark Tinka (Aug 02)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 02)