On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:24 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only.
Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network.
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. Also, an L1/L2 fiber plant may be usable for other services beyond just packets. Owen