nanog mailing list archives

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:08:12 +0200 (CEST)

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 () swm pp se


Current thread: