----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org>
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:14:46PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
The MMR should, IMHO be a colo facility where service providers can lease racks if they choose. The colo should also be operated on a cost recovery basis and should only be open to installation of equipment directly related to providing service to customers reached via the MMR.
I'm not sure I agree with your point.
The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind. The muni MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a generator to work. It should not need to be staffed 24x7, have anything that requires PM, etc.
You are, of course, advocating strict layer 1. A point made to me last night, not, I think by Owen, but .... Bill? .... noted that if we do layer 2, and supply the terminations and hand off at Ethernet, then we enable an audience of much smaller boutique Layer 3 providers, a sentiment with which I heartily agree; I think the tradeoff for having to have active equipment at each end -- at least with the current generation equipment -- is probably not a bad one to make.
I fully support the muni MMR being inside of a colocation facility run by some other company (Equinix/DLR/CoreSite, whatever) so folks can colo "on site". I think it is also important someone be able to set up a colo down the street and just drop in a 1000 strand fiber cable to the actual MMR.
They're not building colos in 2.8 sqmi cities. :-) This approach would work nicely for downtown Tampa, frex. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274