On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:24 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: >> As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at >> layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue >> for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the >> taxpayers. > > Perhaps, but well worth the effort. There are a wide variety of reasons > to want more than one L3 provider to be readily available and avoid > limiting consumers to a single choice of ISP policies, capabilities, etc.
If the municipal provider offers open, settlement-free peering at the head end then the customer *does* have a choice of L3 provider. Tunnel service over IP has only minor differences from an L2 service in such a scenario. Only one difference truthfully: MTU. > Also, an L1/L2 fiber plant may be usable for other services beyond just > packets. True enough but rapidly dropping in importance. The 20th century held POTS service with a rare need for a dry copper pair. The 21st holds IP packets with a rare need for dark fiber. Besides, I don't propose that a municipality implement fiber but refuse to unbundle it at any reasonable price. That would be Really Bad. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
