[AusNOG] Looks like the NBN will be a PON variant for sure...

[Curtis Bayne]

I was kind of hoping that we had moved on from L3 customer access  
tails - especially considering what Telstra taught us with their layer  
3 wholesale access tails that they decomissioned years ago.

IPTV has a case for layer 3 access, but this is exactly what PVCs,  
VLANs were invented for. I don't see any value being added by  
providing wholesale services this way - I think the complexity added  
by concentrating your own tunnels is offset by the flexibility you get  
by doing so. I bet more than one person will want to use these  
services as an MPLS endpoint - I would much rather be doing that with  
a Layer 2 VC. Let's not forget multicast too - Especially if we want  
to do that Highdef video conferencing everyone is talking about!

There are, if course, workarounds for most of these issues - perhaps I  
am stuck in the stone age where ATM is considered a solution, rather  
than a problem. In any case, I think it's pertinent to at least asess  
the impact of relinquishing the flexibility that L2 access gives us.

Also, my tinfoil hat observes that it's far easier to perform  
filtering between the concentrator and the end user with a layer 3  
handoff. Maybe I am paranoid - with our governments perjorative, maybe  
the paranoia is justified.

I am really interested to see AusNOGs opinion on layer 3 access - this  
is something that many of you dealt with at an operational level for a  
significant period of time with ADSL.

Regards,
Curtis



Managing Director
SONET Telecommunications


via SONET Mobile Messaging

On 29/04/2009, at 8:28 AM, "John Lindsay" <jlindsay at internode.com.au>  
wrote:

> No Macca, the perfect place is on the network side not inside your  
> home.
>
> In other parts of the world you tend to get boxes called ONT
>
> http://www.enablence.com/fttx-networks/solutions/trident7/ont
>
> that turn the PON into one, two or four flat or trunk Ethernet  
> port(s).
>
> Depending on the service provider and the customer desires, users then
> either plug straight into the Ethernet for PPPoE or PPTP access or
> they get a routed layer 3 IP address via DHCP that may or may not be
> NATed.
>
> Many parts of the world have gone down the Layer 3 to the customer
> path for NBN type networks.
>
> I'm not at all sure what will win in Australia.  It will probably come
> down to some faceless advisor deciding during his/her morning shower.
>
> I think you can make a very strong argument that Layer 3 is "greener"
> which also means "cheaper to operate" on the basis of needing slightly
> less boxes.
>
> The Layer 2 thing can make life easier for LI, filtering, shaping and
> billing but it really depends on your vendor choices.
>
> HFC networks are often operated as Layer 3 with customers even being
> able to see their neighbours at Layer 2.
>
> ADSL networks are often operated as Layer 2 with all traffic
> encapsulated in PPP.
>
> But IPTV is much easier and more efficient if it's Layer 3 and ADSL
> networks can do that too, even at the same time as encapsulating the
> Internet access.
>
> jsl
>
> On 29/04/2009, at 7:37 AM, McDonald Richards wrote:
>
>> Mr Conroy talks splitter technology:
>>
>> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/101939,nbn-conroy-gets-his-geek-hat-on.aspx
>>
>> Let's hope they commit to using some form of open standard for CPE
>> and we
>> aren't all locked in to using the "NBN Blackbox" (perfect place for
>> government departments to filter and intercept your content?).
>>
>> I wonder how Netcomm, D-Link, Linksys and other manufacturers of
>> small home
>> networking devices would respond to that.
>>
>> Macca
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog