Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:

> Scott Helms wrote:
>
> > Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real
> drawback
> > to using ATM.
>
> High cost is the real drawback.

The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
significantly more than a Gig-E card.  Now, as I said there is no advantage
to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface are not
significant.


> > > > but the basic concept is not bad.
> > >
> > > It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See
> > > the subject.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because, for competing ISPs with considerable share, L1
> unbundling costs less.
>
> They can just have routers, switches and DSL modems in
> collocation spaces of COs, without L2TP or PPPoE, which
> means they can eliminate cost for L2TP or PPPoE.

You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers right?
 You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only open
access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe.


>                                         Masataka Ohta



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